Sitting of 10 May 1993

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

    Tourism
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he is proposing to promote tourism in East Anglia; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): The English tourist board, which receives grant in aid from my Department, will allocate at least £400,000 to the East Anglia tourist board during this financial year. The total allocation to each regional board has not been settled yet, as a proportion of regional funding will be distributed later in the year by means of a new scheme aimed at directing resources to areas where the industry is most in need of support.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware of the opening earlier this year of the Manor House museum in Bury St. Edmunds, which will house the borough's collection of paintings and porcelain and, in particular, its unique collection of clocks? That will further enhance the reputation of Bury St. Edmunds as a great jewel in the crown of East Anglia. Does my hon. Friend agree that the opening of the museum, and so many others like it, demonstrates the flowering of—and interest in—the arts that has come about in the past 10 years?
    Mr. Key: I have indeed heard about the Manor House museum and its collections, and I know that my hon. Friend has supported it over the past year. It does, of course, represent, a jewel in the crown of East Anglia's tourist attractions; moreover, it confirms the flowering of the arts that has developed over the past decade or so. It is a little-known fact that, over the past 10 years, roughly one museum has opened every two weeks.

    Royal Opera House
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what involvement his Department has had in discussions to increase private charitable funding to secure the future of the Royal Opera House.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): It is for the Royal Opera House to take the lead in seeking sponsors for its proposed redevelopment
    480
    scheme. I welcome the fact that it has already received pledges of significant private contributions to its appeal fund.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that redevelopment scheme is essential to the future of the Royal Opera House, or does he endorse the more sceptical view expressed by the Arts Council? What specific response have the Government made to the magnificent pledges of Mrs. Vivien Duffield and Lord Sainsbury?
    Mr. Brooke: As the local Member of Parliament, I could not but be aware of the physical circumstances of the Royal Opera House. They have been described as Dickensian; I would say that, backstage, they owed even more to Gustave Dore. The ROH is clearly right to propose a redevelopment scheme.
    As for the view of the Arts Council, it has of course asked for reports, but it has also engaged in a continuing dialogue with the ROH. Mrs. Duffield and Lord Sainsbury, who have already been generous to the Tate and National galleries respectively, came to see the Prime Minister recently to describe developments in the scheme.
    Mr. Fraser: I wish the appeal well, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is very difficult for people of moderate or poor means—as opposed to a person who is rich, corporate and probably a subscriber—to see world-famous singers at the Royal Opera House, because the numbers are limited to about 2,000? Following the example of President Mitterrand, has the right hon. Gentleman considered building a larger opera house, in which ordinary working-class people of moderate means, along with those who take advantage of corporate hospitality, could see world-famous singers?
    Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for wishing the appeal well. The Royal Opera House has made it clear that it wants access to be improved, and the scheme will afford that not only in terms of the number of seats available, but in terms of the number of performances that can be accommodated. While I do not wish the French President ill in any way, I think that the hon. Gentleman has been more generous to the new French opera house than other critics might be.

    Windsor Castle (Fire)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he is now able to give a formal estimate of the cost of the Windsor castle fire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: As I said in my statement to the House on 29 April, early estimates suggest that the reconstruction will cost £30 million to £40 million over five years. That is the estimate which I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 22 February.
    Mr. Skinner: There have been estimates of up to £44 million in the newspapers recently. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it has been alleged that the fire was caused as a result of criminal neglect, because of the removal of fire service cover? Why is it that they do not call upon the Queen to pay the lot and foot the bill, because they were responsible at the beginning? Why should there be one law for the Queen and another for the rest of the

    481
    British public? Why is it that they have got the gall to charge people for going into Buckingham palace to pay for the fire and to pay for her taxes? They are just a bunch of cheapskates.
    Mr. Brooke: I take it that in his initial remarks the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Berkshire fire service report, which was made available within government on 19 April but which saw the light of day two days before the county council elections, which some may think was a remarkable coincidence. That report, as the chief fire officer has said, has been selectively quoted by others. As for the financing and maintenance of the royal palaces, the hon. Gentleman knows from our long-running dialogue that this was settled in 1831. Many hon. Members would welcome, as he did not, the Queen's decision to open Buckingham palace to the public and to make sure that the contributions are given to the restoration of the castle.
    Mr. Jessel: As we have the finest Queen in the world, who is hugely admired and respected by the vast majority of people everywhere, will my right hon. Friend totally repudiate the unrepresentative view of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) Can my right hon. Friend give a forecast of how much money the opening of Buckingham palace is likely to raise towards the Windsor castle repairs?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend, as the Member of Parliament for Hampton Court palace, does admirably in terms of his expressions of loyalty. I absolutely endorse what he says. The ticket sales for Buckingham palace will reinforce the ticket sales for Windsor castle. It is expected that that revenue will provide the clear and vast majority of the funds necessary for the restoration.

    Freedom of the Press
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next plans to meet representatives of the newspaper industry to discuss freedom of the press.
    Mr. Brooke: I met the chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance Limited on 9 March to discuss the newspaper industry's response to Sir David Calcutt's review of press self-regulation. I look forward to a future meeting with the board in due course.
    Mr. O'Hara: Will the Secretary of State make it clear on the next occasion that he meets representatives of the press that the public will no longer tolerate chequebook journalism that destroys lives for the sake of the cheap, ephemeral headline and then moves on to the next headline, leaving shattered lives behind? Will he make it clear to them that they have failed lamentably in their paltry efforts to regulate themselves and that it is high time that they were subjected to external sanction and regulation?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman will have made his point to what is called Pressbof more vividly than any words that I could use. However, I join him in hoping that the press will continue to look at ways in which their methods of regulation can be improved.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend reiterate that a free press is a guarantee of our own freedom? Nazi
    482
    Germany did not have a free press; South Africa did not have a free press. We are lucky to have a free press. Will my right hon. Friend reiterate that fact?
    Mr. Brooke: I share my hon. Friend's support and acclaim of a free press. All hon. Members recognise that, although the press sometimes views the House with suspicion in case we should seek to encroach on its freedom, the responsibility for ensuring that we retain a free press, which I agree is one of the glories of our constitution, rests on the press itself.
    Mr. Corbett: While the right hon. Gentleman is considering his response to the Calcutt and National Heritage Select Committee reports on press regulation, will he invite representatives of newspapers, magazines and broadcasting to talks about how the present laws, which inhibit press freedom, might be changed, and will he consider the threat of the concentration of ownership and cross-ownership of the media to the plurality of views and voices? In particular, will he now use powers contained in the Broadcasting Act 1990 to require Mr. Rupert Murdoch to choose between his ownership of BSkyB and five national newspapers?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is correct in his description of the need for the Government to determine their response to Sir David Calcutt's report and the Select Committee report. I pay tribute to the comprehensiveness of the latter. Its comprehensiveness sets the Government a considerable task in responding to it. As we wish to observe due courtesies to the House and to the speed at which we respond, it might be a mistake to enlarge the agenda further, but the question that the hon. Gentleman asked remains under review.

    British Amateur Rugby League Association
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assistance has been given to the British Amateur Rugby League Association through the Sports Council in 1992–93.
    Mr. Key: The Sports Council provided £160,000 in grant aid payments to the British Amateur Rugby League Association in 1992–93. In addition, it provided considerable advice and expertise to BARLA on sports science, coaching and international issues.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister pass on my appreciation of, and gratitude for, the excellent grant that the Sports Council gave the sport of amateur rugby league last year? Does he accept, however, that it is not only a question of the allocation of funds and will he undertake that until the increasingly professional sport of rugby union ends its policy of discrimination against rugby league it will not receive a donation from the national lottery?
    Mr. Key: We had an excellent debate on this, albeit in the middle of the night, on 28 April which was initiated by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is in his place today. It is not in my gift to do what the hon. Gentleman asks. It is crucial that we maintain the arm's-length principle of funding and Ministers will not decide who benefits from the lottery. However, as I said on 28 April, it is important to have a wide debate on the issues and, as I suggested at the end of my speech, perhaps a few heads need knocking together.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities to support rugby league and amateur rugby union have increased dramatically in recent years, and will he join me in praising all those who encourage and educate children in those sports, especially those who are involved in amateur rugby league and rugby union in Blackpool, which is a home for both sports?
    Mr. Key: Yes, of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right and I welcome his comments. As a former teacher, it would be surprising if I did not recognise the importance of sport for young people.

    Monuments (Greater London)
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received in the last six months as regards the future maintenance and stewardship of monuments within Greater London.
    Mr. Brooke: I have received various representations from organisations and individuals about the future maintenance and stewardship of monuments in Greater London.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread concern not only among professionals in conservation work but ordinary, proud Londoners, who see their capital city falling into decay? Will he address himself to the fact that there are 831 grade I and grade II listed buildings on English Heritage's at-risk register in Greater London? Does he accept that the Albert memorial, shored up as it is, is just a symbol of greater decay throughout the capital? What will he do about it? Does he understand that the fact that he might universally be considered a nice man is twinned with the fact that he is considered to be a totally useless Minister?
    Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the cordiality of his question. I recently announced the Government's determination of the English Heritage strategy on the care of listed buildings in London. I am conscious that it decided recently to place the Albert memorial on the list of buildings at risk. It is an issue on which there is some disagreement between my Department and English Heritage, but we recognise the point that it wished to make and, as has been made clear, we will return to the restoration of the Albert memorial as soon as appropriate funds allow.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the comment that he just heard is not typical of the House? Most hon. Members see him as a living memorial to the triumphs of the arts and Conservative policy, and long may that continue to be the case. May I endorse what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said about the Albert memorial—he will know that I have taken up that issue—which is a memorial not only to Prince Albert but to the triumph of the arts and sciences during that age of British history and is precious to Londoners and people throughout the country.
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks although, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) had adopted an antithetical style by saying something friendly followed by something disagreeable, I had the faintest misgiving that perhaps my hon. Friend was going to reverse the process. I have made it clear that,
    484
    by definition, the Government recognise the importance of the Albert memorial. As and when funds allow—we shall approach the subject during the future public expenditure round—we will resume its restoration.
    Dr. Reid: Is not it the case that Buckingham palace is the most popular, well-known and often-visited of all the monuments, memorials and historic buildings in inner London? In view of that fact, will the Minister tell us what projection the Government have made of the income that the Queen will receive during the next five years? As he has decided to issue tickets in advance, through travel operators and others, what considerations are the Government giving to the prospect of those awful west end parasites, the ticket touts, meandering their way in front of Buckingham palace? Have they considered that and would it not be a demeaning spectacle if the residence of the head of state were to be marred by those very parasites?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his praise of Buckingham palace as a symbol of our nation, although architectural critics have not always been so kind. The decisions about access to Buckingham palace were taken by the royal household, which will be in charge of access arrangements. As I understand it, the group tickets have already sold out and I imagine that the old-fashioned British principle of queuing will apply to people applying for tickets individually.

    Television Licence Fee (Abolition)
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration he has given to abolition of the television licence fee.
    Mr. Key: The licence fee will continue at least until the expiry of the present royal charter in 1996. The longer-term future of the licence fee will be considered as part of the charter review.
    Mrs. Gorman: Has my hon. Friend read in the newspapers during the past few days about the massive windfall that some directors of independent television companies have picked up simply because they managed to gain one of the franchises? Does not that show that there is masses of money in the private sector that could fund television programmes on BBC, just as well as it funds programmes on ITV? Is not it quite wrong that if grandad wishes to watch "Coronation Street" on ITV as opposed to "EastEnders" on BBC, or grandma prefers "This is your Life" on ITV to "One Foot in the Grave", they must pay £85 a year for a lot of programmes that they do not want to watch, when private sector money is available to fund the BBC?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend has put her finger on an important point. Indeed, it was a point raised by her constituent Mr. Leonard Jones of 77 Belmont avenue, Wickford in his letter to her of 20 October which she forwarded to me. I am grateful to her for raising that point. It is part of the charter review process and we will consider that representation.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Given the limitations of the licence fee, especially as it affects pensioners, will the Minister accept that many Labour Members would be sceptical

    485
    about any alternative form of funding the BBC that left it open either to crude market forces or to increased Government intrusion in programme making?
    Mr. Key: I accept that very important point. There are two sides to the argument. I also take the point about concessionary licences over which the House and successive Governments have wrangled for many years. It would be very expensive to change the position. Conservative Members and, I suspect, all other Members do not regard the licence as an instrument of social policy.
    Mr. Dickens: Many years ago, I asked for the television licence to be completely abolished and I supported a Labour Bill on that. Will my hon. Friend try to get away from the licence fee? We employ many people to go round with detector vans, and we have to replace and maintain those vans. It costs a lot of money that could go towards television programmes. There must be a better way. It would help pensioners tremendously not to have to pay those large bills.
    Mr. Key: Of course I recognise my hon. Friend's point about the cost to pensioners. It is also worth making the point that the BBC licence fee costs about 23p a day. My hon. Friend's representation will be taken into account and we shall have to work out a way forward. It is worth noting that we have received more than 6,000 representations in response to the paper that we published before Christmas. I do not think that there has ever been such a widespread review of broadcasting policy.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I am sure that the Minister agrees that among the vast amount of evidence that he has received, no coherent argument is emerging for changing the current system of financing the BBC through the licence fee. The debate on the future of the BBC cannot be seen in isolation from the wider broadcasting industry and from the chaos caused by the Broadcasting Act 1990. Will the Minister admit today that ITV is in danger of being swamped by imported American programmes and that the BBC could become the only significant source of original, high-quality United Kingdom production? When will he face up to his responsibilities and take up his responsibility to amend the invidious and infamous Broadcasting Act 1990?
    Mr. Key: I accept my responsibilities; I have broad shoulders and I intend to use them. However, I do not accept for one moment that the ITV companies are in danger of being swamped by anything. They are vibrant and strong, and they are making programmes that are held in worldwide esteem. Of course there are coherent arguments on all sides of the debate about the future funding of the BBC. The hon. Lady has done her bit to destroy confidence in the ITV companies by some of her recent comments.

    Millennium Fund
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for the millennium fund; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: Subject to the views of another place, the millennium fund will finance a number of projects, large and small, throughout the United Kingdom to celebrate fittingly the beginning of the third millennium. I hope that the fund will also endow a system of bursaries.
    Mr. Greenway: May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that the millennium fund will not be used only to fund monuments in London and in the rest of the country, although they may have a place? Could not an imaginative scheme be developed to advance the cause of individuals and the welfare of people as we move into the third millennium and seek to establish a completely new spirit for the whole nation and for the world?
    Mr. Brooke: In 1851 and in 1951, which are the most recent parallels and analogies, when my party was not in power, the monuments were concentrated heavily in London. I do not know who will be in power when the millennium is celebrated, although I have great confidence in my own party. One thing of which I hope I can be certain is that the monuments will be spread throughout the United Kingdom.
    In the context of my hon. Friend's question, as I said, I hope that there will also be bursaries. I hope that they will be enjoyed not only by those starting out on their careers but by those starting out in retirement and that that will be in the spirit of what my hon. Friend seeks.
    Mr. Dalyell: Could millennium funds be diverted to the Albert memorial? Is it not a fact that, because of deterioration related to copper sulphate and iron oxide, any repairs will be more difficult and infinitely more expensive in 1994 than they would be if they were done straight away, in 1993? Is not this a classic case of a stitch in time saving nine?
    Mr. Brooke: All uses of lottery funds will be decided by those named as the distributors under the National Lottery etc. Bill. It will be for the distributors to decide on the quality of applications on the basis of the advice that they receive. I recognise that the Albert memorial might be such a candidate—
    Mr. Dalyell: This summer.
    Mr. Brooke: The Bill does not become an Act until later this year. The use of millennium funds may fall foul of the principle of additionality, which is important to Opposition and Conservative Members alike.
    Mr. Robert Banks: I appreciate that there are difficulties in deciding what should mark the millennium, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that our music industry, and the popular music industry in particular, has some of the greatest talent in the world? Does he agree that the establishment of a great music palace, within whose walls the popular music of previous decades and of the present could be played, would be a fitting and exciting way in which to mark the millennium?
    Mr. Brooke: I have no doubt that a series of imaginative proposals will be put to the Millennium Commission when it is established. My hon. Friend's idea seems a good candidate, but applications will be treated on their merits by the commission.
    Mr. Pendry: Does the Secretary of State know why questions such as that raised by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) are being posed now? Could it be because of the secrecy that has been a hallmark of his Department's approach to certain aspects of the National Lottery etc. Bill? Is he aware that the GAH report, which his Department commissioned but refused to publish, has now been published—conveniently, after

    487
    the Bill has received its Third Reading and at the exorbitant cost of £695 a copy? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a scandal if GAH made a financial killing on the back of public money, especially given that hon. Members were denied access to the contents of that report during the passage of the Bill?
    Mr. Brooke: I take mild exception to the hon. Gentleman's observation about the Government's secrecy in the context of the millennium fund. We have sought to be open in every answer that we have given. The report published by GAH earlier today was not commissioned by the Government and has not yet been seen by my Department.
    Mr. Cormack: May I ask my right hon. Friend to be a little less modest about who will be in power at the time of the millennium and a little less cautious in his replies about the Albert memorial? Can he not put in a good word, as it is a total scandal that that great memorial is rotting away under scaffolding?
    Mr. Brooke: I am certain that, with the continuing and robust support of my hon. Friend, my party will be in power at the time of the millennium. I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that his support is robustly given during the seven years from now. As regards the Albert memorial, I can only repeat what I said and draw my hon. Friend's attention to the principle of additionality, which is of some importance in the overall lottery equation.

    Arts Council for Wales
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next intends to meet the Arts Council for Wales to discuss funding.
    Mr. Brooke: I have no current plans to do so.
    Mr. Hain: When the Secretary of State meets the Arts Council for Wales, will he use his good offices to press for additional funding for the Pontardawe international music festival? That unique and excellent local event attracts 20,000 spectators and participants to its annual August festival. Although it has received some additional grant aid in the past few years, it is run by an enthusiastic bunch of volunteers who need permanent funding to assist them of the kind that goes towards specialist but narrowly based forms of music. Will the Secretary of State press for that funding on a permanent basis? I invite him to attend the festival over the weekend of 20 to 22 August, if he is in that part of the world.
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance warning that he intended to raise the subject of the Pontardawe music festival. I gather that, last year, West Wales Arts began to give a development grant to the festival of £5,000 for each of three financial years. That grant attracted funds from other sources for the 1992 festival. I hope that the organisers achieve the same this year. As to the future, the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will take responsibility for the Arts Council for Wales on I April next year. For future years, perhaps the hon. Gentleman's request should be more locally delivered.

    Midlands Mainline Rail Services
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the impact on the tourist industry in the east midlands of the level of service on the midlands main line; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: English tourist board research indicates that 8 per cent. of trips to the east midlands in 1991 were made by train. British Rail has already invested significant sums to upgrade the line.
    Mr. Barnes: Is there not a danger that the east midlands will become a backwater in terms of tourism, commercial provision and industrial activity unless it has an effective rail link in the midlands main line, for which electrification is required? If the line is to link with the heart of Europe through St. Pancras, electrification begins to be required. Could the Secretary of State for Transport be informed that it is no to privatisation and yes to electrification?
    Mr. Key: As far as I am concerned, it is yes to tourism in Derbyshire. I shall visit Derbyshire on Thursday to launch the Peak tourism partnership. I shall, of course, explain to the people of Derbyshire the benefits to tourism of privatisation and of electrification, which may or may not happen. Railtrack will be financed primarily through charges to the users, but, as it was originally a nationalised industry, it will have access to Government loans. Privatisation will therefore increase the range of public support mechanisms for infrastructure spending.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that tourists who wish to visit the east midlands, and Derbyshire in particular, have benefited considerably in recent years by continued and sustained investment in the rail infrastructure on that line? Does he agree that the journey time for tourists to reach the east midlands is now 30 to 45 mintues quicker than it was five or six years ago?
    Mr. Key: Of course, my hon. Friend is right. I travel on that line. I know that it is an excellent line. I wish that some of the other lines in Britain were as good.

    Freedom of the Press
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he intends to take to protect a free press.
    Mr. Key: In deciding our response to the recommendations of Sir David Calcutt and the National Heritage Select Committee on press self-regulation, we shall be guided by our commitment to freedom of the press, which is a cornerstone of our democracy.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that it is something of a paradox that we have more television stations, more newspapers and thicker newspapers, yet they appear to be in the ownership of fewer and fewer hands? Should not the Minister be wary about the freedom of the press in Britain after the experience of self-censorship of those people who worked for the Mirror Newspaper Group during Maxwell's days? Should he not cite as an example the Scott trust, which was supposedly a good thing but which has used the Manchester Evening News and The Guardian to increase its share of newspaper ownership in Greater Manchester?
    Mr. Key: It is perfectly valid to talk about concentration of media ownership, but that is a slightly different issue from the freedom of the press to comment on events, people and activities. As I have just said, that is the cornerstone of our democracy.

    Television Franchises
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to review the television franchise system.
    Mr. Brooke: It is too early to consider changes to the arrangements which came into effect at the beginning of the year, but I shall keep the working of the Broadcasting Act 1990 under review.
    Ms. Quin: Does the Minister agree that the crazy auction system by which the franchises were allocated has already led to severe problems, particularly in the case of Tyne Tees Television? Is he aware of the great concern in the north-east of England about job losses at Tyne Tees, about the failure to deliver the regional programmes that were promised and the effect on the region's media industry, which many of us want to see expand? What specific steps will he take to resolve the matter?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady takes a more pessimistic view of the working of the Act and of the health of the federal system than other, more objective, critics might. I made it clear on 6 May, in answer to a question that she tabled, that the Independent Television Commission was looking at the Yorkshire-Tyne Tees merger and its consequences, and I look forward to its report.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister care about broken franchise promises and companies using every ruse in the book to deny the truth to the ITC? Is it not a fact that the Broadcasting Act 1990 has led to a big increase in acquired programmes, with the obligation to produce 86 per cent. of programmes falling to only 65 per cent., with worse to come? Surely even the Minister must realise that the Act will result in less innovation and a narrower range of programmes for viewers. That must call for some concern from him.
    Mr. Brooke: I yield to none in wishing to sustain the production base of television and broadcasting in this country. It underlay the Green Paper that we issued on the BBC last November, and I regard it as important in national and international terms. The hon. Lady constantly tempts me to interfere with the ITC, which has responsibility under the Act, and, in the process, interfere with the arm's-length principle which governs most of the activities in which my Department is engaged and which we regard as an admirable part of the British system. The hon. Lady would do more justice to her overall position if she did not constantly ask me to interfere in matters of particulars.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Disabled People
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that specific provision is made in the various charters for the needs of disabled people.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): Charters should take account of the needs of all customers and set standards of service which apply to all of them, including people with disabilities.
    Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister aware that since, tragically, the Conservatives came to power in 1979, there have been five private Members' Bills, including two of mine, designed to outlaw discrimination against disabled people? When will the Government break the habit of a lifetime and listen to people, including every disabled persons' organisation? Is he aware that they all believe that those measures should have been allowed through by the Government? Will he make sure that there is early legislation to ensure that, in future, disabled people in Britain are regarded as first-class rather than second-class citizens?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That comes ill from the Labour party. There has been a 300 per cent. real-terms increase in spending on the disabled since the Labour party was last in power. That is a record to be proud of.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of charters for individual services was the best way to proceed, rather than publication for groups of services? Does he further agree that the publication of individual services must improve a particular service, rather than that of a whole sector?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Much the best way to get better standards from organisations is to set targets for them. That is why I am pleased to say that 27 of the 31 existing charters have specific targets aimed at helping disabled people, and I hope that the other four will be improved so that they do, too.
    Ms Hoey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an important need for people in receipt of disability benefit and those in receipt of other benefits, such as pensioners, is flexibility and choice as to how the benefit is paid? Does he realise that the Department of Social Security is introducing new forms that do not give the option of payment through post offices? Given the inconvenience and hardship that that will cause to all those claiming benefits, particularly the disabled, will he stand up for the citizen's right to choose and stop the DSS acting in such a devious manner?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is no intention to infringe in any way the right of people to choose how they want their pensions or other benefits paid. I believe that the DSS has been carrying out experiments to find out whether various alternative methods of payment are acceptable, but no decisions have been taken on any changes.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system of charters brings great benefits to people with disabilities, in housing, transport, education, and so on? Will my right hon. Friend ensure, as and when new charters are developed and introduced, that he always bears in mind the need to consult people with disabilities and their organisations, in order to produce all consultative documents in forms that people with visual handicaps can understand?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend's point. We have produced a range of tapes and

    491
    material in Braille for that very purpose. I had a useful meeting with members of the all-party disablement group recently, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), at which we discussed those issues.

    Psoriasis and Acne
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what support he gives to research on psoriasis and acne, and other related dermatological topics; and what representations he has had in relation to such research from the National Eczema Society.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The main agency through which the Government support research into skin disease is the Medical Research Council. In the financial year 1991–92, the MRC's expenditure on research directly relevant to psoriasis and other dermatological disorders was more than £2·3 million.
    Mr. Dalyell: As one who was a spotty teenager, greatly embarrassed by acne during my national service, may I ask the Government sympathetically to monitor the representations that have been put forward, on supposedly relatively minor disorders, by the National Eczema Society? What is the Government's response on the effort on research of the limited list procedures put forward to them by Rona MacKie, professor of dermatology at the university of Glasgow, and John Hunter, head of the big dermatology department in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Jackson: To look at the hon. Gentleman's elegant countenance, one would never have thought that he was a spotty youth. The Government are aware of those concerns. It is necessary to balance the costs and the benefits to patients, to the industry and the taxpayer. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs will look this summer at all the dermatological drugs available on the NHS and will take into account the perspective to which he referred.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the past 10 years there has been a significant increase in asthma and eczema cases and other atopic illnesses? Does he agree that that may be linked to environmental factors relating to car pollution? Will he therefore liaise with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to make sure that any research carried out takes cognisance of that fact?
    Mr. Jackson: I will draw those comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Medical Research Council is at arm's length from the Government—it makes decisions about priorities—but it is important that it should reflect on that important aspect, and I will ensure that it is aware of what has been said.

    Charters
    Mr. Legg: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps his Department is taking to ensure that individual charters are systematically reviewed and strengthened.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Charters are a baseline for continued improvement. As standards are met, they are
    492
    reviewed and raised and new standards are developed as appropriate. Delivery is for the service providers in the first place, but my Department keeps a sharp eye on it through, for example, the Prime Minister's seminars and our published reports.
    Mr. Legg: I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that the parents charter is regularly revised, and in particular to take account of the additional information that will be available to parents once full testing of the national curriculum is introduced.
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of testing and the connection between that and information. The recent polls show that parents want more information about the performance of schools and their children. They have not yet seen perhaps as clearly as they should the connection between testing and that information. We have to explain that connection, but it is vital that we continue with the testing programme to ensure that the information that parents want is available to them.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman say what remedy the charters provide against the squandering of taxpayers' money by the Benefits Agency? For example, £2·1 million has been spent on health screening programmes in private clinics for staff aged 35 and over, 86,000 individual items of corporate clothing costing £2·1 million have been provided and £6·8 million has been spent on overtime because of the total incompetence with which the disability living allowance system has been administered. That makes a total of £10 million already, which could have been spent on benefits instead of nonsense. Will the hon. Gentleman now sack Mr. Michael Bichard and restore parliamentary accountability for the Department of Social Security?
    Mr. Jackson: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman regards expenditure on health screening as squandering money. I am also surprised that he has attacked good employment practice in the civil service. He asked about the relationship between those factors and the charters, which focus on outputs from public services. There have been problems with the DSS agency's outputs— they have been clearly recognised and are being tackled. The charters do not involve the sort of expenditure to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, as that would not be sensible when trying to manage an organisation that provides good outputs for patients, clients and customers.

    Market Testing
    Mrs. Browning: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will report regularly on the progress of the market-testing programme.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am happy to be able to tell the House that when the current market-testing programme for the year to September 1993 is completed, I shall publish the outcome in line with our citizens charter principle of providing more information on Government activities.
    I have also set in hand the publishing of a contracts bulletin which, from this summer, will announce all Departments' future programmes and then all individual market-testing contracts when they are under competition.
    Mrs. Browning: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the bulletin is published, it will be made fully available to the small business community, which will find it extremely useful when tendering for contracts that were previously not available to it? Will he ensure that it is widely available and written in plain English?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The work that we have done makes it clear that the bulletin will be particularly helpful to smaller companies that may be interested in smaller contracts.
    Ms Mowlam: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, since his appointment last year, his disagreements with Cabinet colleagues and his lack of political will have turned the market-testing programme into a fiasco, produced the chaos that we now see in the civil service and stalled his commitment to open government? We are still awaiting the White Paper on science. What steps will he take to ensure that when the inevitable Cabinet reshuffle takes place, after the fiasco last week, it will not result in the right hon. Gentleman being replaced by one of his more dynamic colleagues?
    Mr. Waldegrave: One thing that was made perfectly clear by all the commentators over the weekend was that we had reached another stage in the terminal decline of the Labour party. Having listened to the hon. Lady's contribution, one can see why. The hon. Lady hopes that the market-testing programme will go away, but she will find that it will not—we will proceed with it for the benefit of taxpayers and those who use public services.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the civil servants who have been involved in market testing have demonstrated that once their sense of enterprise is released, they are able to do their jobs much better? Certainly, the agencies demonstrate good enterprise within the civil service and the Government.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, many in the public service are far more forward looking than the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). As Jo Rogaly said in the Financial Times last week, the Labour party stands for nothing except "the maintenance of bureaucracies".

    Citizens Charters
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans he has to review and amend citizens charters.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr.Legg).
    Mr. Gerrard: Is the Minister aware that the citizens charter's list of performance indicators for local government includes hardly any that relate specifically to services to ethnic minority communities and contains no mention of major services such as education? Does he accept that record keeping and monitoring are an essential part of ensuring that equal opportunities policies operate effectively? Will he ensure that charters and performance indicators do not continue simply to ignore them?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is important to monitor the participation of ethnic
    494
    minorities in a range of activities. I will certainly draw the attention of the Audit Commission, which is responsible for local government performance indicators, to what the hon. Gentleman said about ethnic minorities. We shall certainly bear in mind the interests of ethnic minorities in drawing up all the charters so that, where appropriate, they can be taken into account.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Will my hon. Friend, in reviewing and amending the citizens charter, recognise that in local government the achievement of a charter mark was accepted with pleasure by competent local authorities at the top of the scale? However, there is considerable wastage at the bottom end of the scale and it would benefit the public, in terms of the quality of services and potential savings, if heavier pressure were placed on local authorities at the bottom end of the charter list.
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend, with his great experience of local government, is absolutely right. I should like to draw the attention of the Opposition Front Bench to a statement made recently in the Municipal Journal by the leader of the Labour party on Berkshire county council, Dr. Lawrence Silverman, who seems to be well in advance of his party in the House. He said:
    "if the private sector can provide computing, payroll and other financial services cheaper than the in-house bureaucracy, then we owe it to the people…to make these savings and to put the money saved into direct services".
    My hon. Friend and Dr. Silverman are absolutely right; it is Opposition Members who have not quite got the point.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: In reviewing and amending charters, the Minister placed considerable emphasis on responsiveness to public demand. On the education charter and particularly testing, given the thumbs down from teachers, the public at the polls and even education advisers to the Secretary of State for Education, will the Minister at least draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that the citizens charter is meant to pay attention to other people's views and, one hopes, will do so before the system descends into chaos?
    Mr. Jackson: Of course we have to pay attention to people's views and explain our policies clearly and effectively. But, as I said earlier, we have to explain that there is a vital connection between testing and the information that parents are seeking about the performance of schools.
    Lady Olga Maitland: In reviewing charters, is my hon. Friend aware that the passengers charter is working very well? Last weekend, I was on a train from Truro to London which was an hour and a half late. Every courtesy was extended to me, plus an offer of compensation. Does that not show that the Government put people first and that they care?
    Mr. Jackson: There is no doubt that an improvement in performance has been effected by the way in which the charters are picking up the performance of public services through monitoring, and a significant contribution is being made.

    Taurid Object (Debris)
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment the Government have made about the Earth's vulnerability from debris

    495
    shed from the Taurid object; and in what scientific and international initiatives the Government are involved in order to gather intelligence about the threat presented by asteroid strikes generally.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The chief scientific adviser last year consulted extensively on the threat posed by asteroids. The conclusion reached was that the United Kingdom should not divert major Government resources to research in this area, although work on asteroid collisions is going on at Sheffield university.
    The United States have been looking at the matter carefully, and I understand that its conclusions have led it to fund a limited detection programme. Clearly, it would be pointless to duplicate that research. We shall, however, continue to monitor the research undertaken and keep our approach under review.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Does he understand that large numbers of distinguished scientists and experts throughout the world are alarmed by their inability to alert Governments to the gravity of the situation? Will he give the matter further consideration? In particular, I commend to him an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 25 April by its science correspondent which explained with great clarity the seriousness of the matter, which really should not be treated with levity by the House.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Let no one say that Members representing Essex take only a parochial view of matters. The hon. Gentleman is right. I have read the article to which he refers, and there is a real issue here. At this stage, it is a research issue. We are well in touch with the international network studying it.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Will my right hon. Friend consider the theory that the dinosaurs' lives came to an end as a result of an asteroid? [Interruption]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I want to listen to the hon. Gentleman, but there is a great deal of noise going on. Let me hear whether his question is in order.
    Mr. Evans: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the concern shown by the Labour party is deeply ironic in this context and that research, at this stage, is as far as it need go?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Probably the straightforward answer to that is, yes.

    Research Foresight Concepts
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent discussions he has had with industry about research foresight concepts; and whether these will be covered in his science and technology White Paper.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Office of Science and Technology published a report by the science policy research unit at Sussex university on research foresight in March this year. I and my officials have had many discussions on such foresight with major British companies and the Confederation of British Industry in preparing for the White Paper.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful for that reply. We greatly look forward to the publication of the White Paper as a result. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of our competitors, including the United States and Japan, already participate in such foresight exercises?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Indeed they do, and so do the Germans, the Dutch and people from other competitor countries. There may well be lessons to be learnt, which is why I have been in touch with the Sussex university unit, one of the centres of expertise on this subject.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that other Governments in Europe and the European Commission take a considerably greater interest in this matter than do the British Government and that, in the conferences planned on the European Community fast programme, he and his colleagues are participating but little?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We shall be coming to the discussion on the fourth framework programme, where a great deal of work is going on in this country, to make sure that our negotiating position is properly organised. The hon. Gentleman will find that we do not hold back when it comes to putting forward Britain's views on this matter.
    Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have a Standing Order No. 20 application to hear from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).

Lyons Bakeries (Wakefield)
3.31 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"job losses in the Wakefield metropolitan district".
At 5 pm last Friday evening, I was informed by Lyons Bakeries (UK) Ltd of its intention to close down its Wakefield bakery and transfer the production of Lyons cakes elsewhere. Currently, about 334 full-time and 147 part-time staff are employed at the bakery, the plant being one of the largest employers in my constituency.
The announcement of the closure comes only a fortnight after the announcement of the closure of the Lofthouse Foods factory in Wakefield. Although that factory is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), several hundred of the 1,300 people losing their jobs there live in my constituency. Indeed, only the other day a neighbour came around asking for a reference for another job, having lost his job at that plant after nearly 40 years of working there.
The loss of nearly 2,000 jobs in such a short space of time would have a devastating impact on any area, but the impact on Wakefield is even more acute, because of the huge loss of employment that the district has faced owing to the rundown of coalmining and associated industries.
Since 1979, more than 20,000 such jobs have disappeared from Wakefield, and about 2,000 mining engineering jobs have gone in my constituency alone since 1987.
The consequence of this job haemorrhage in coal has been that women have increasingly become the main breadwinners in many homes. Female employment provided by companies such as Lyons Bakeries, even part-time, has often been the sole source of income of a growing number of families. On the latest available official estimate, 15,533 people were unemployed in the Wakefield district. That is a 7·5 per cent. increase over the previous year.
There are further huge projected job losses on the horizon, with 700 likely to lose their jobs when Sharlston colliery, in the adjacent Normanton constituency, closes shortly. The Wakefield area simply cannot take any further job losses, and there is a need to give urgent consideration to steps that must be taken to stop further redundancies and create new employment opportunities. Assisted area status is long overdue.
I appreciate the importance of today's business, Madam Speaker, but I am sure that you will understand—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not timed himself, and his time is now up. I have given very careful attention to what he has said, and I have to give my decision, as he knows, without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.36 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: You will recollect, Madam Speaker, that in the past few months, and particularly a week ago, you had various points of order arising out of what was, parliamentary-wise, in order in relation to Lord Justice Scott and his report. I apologise for not giving you warning of this point of order, but I went to the Scott inquiry at 1 Buckingham gate this morning to see Mrs. Presiley Baxendale QC and others cross-questioning a witness from the Ministry of Defence, Mr. Christopher Sandars. It was quite clear from what was to a layman a very impressive examination that this is an inquiry that will go on for many months. I do not doubt that Lord Justice Scott will take extreme care about this inquiry, as indeed the House of Commons expects of him.
The point of order for you is this. In the light of what you said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and me, and other Members, on previous occasions, could you reflect on whether the House of Commons should be anaesthetised from asking questions about this whole area that is within the remit of Lord Justice Scott so long as this inquiry goes on, because that would mean that we could not ask meaningful questions for perhaps a year?
Madam Speaker: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman earlier, but he probably has not understood me, that there is no sub judice rule whatsoever in terms of the inquiry. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is nodding very wisely, and he understands. I have said this many times in the House. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will take a look at Hansard, he will see that I have spelt this out extremely clearly on more than one occasion.
Mr. David Winnick: Last Thursday, Madam Speaker, you told my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche):
"There can be no Government responsibility for finance given to a political party."—[Official Report, 6 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 282.]
May I seek your guidance arising from what you said at the time, although obviously the situation has changed somewhat? Yesterday in the Sunday Express, a former treasurer of the Conservative party, Lord McAlpine, said that Mr. Nadir had come to him and said that he had been very good to the Conservative party; that they were the Government and could help him. He added:
"I have given millions for the Conservative party"—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Member be heard.
Mr. Winnick: My point of order, Madam Speaker, is simply this. Since substantial sums of money were given to the party in office, obviously to buy influence, would it be possible—[Interruption.] We cannot be heckled and shouted down, I hope, Madam Speaker. Would it therefore be possible for hon. Members to make a passing reference to the subject of the finances of the Conservative party? I have already brought to your notice what you said last Thursday. I hope that that can now be amended and that, if we make a passing reference to the substantial sums of money that Mr. Nadir gave to the Conservative—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have got the hon. Gentleman's point of order. The Conservative party is not the Government.—[Interruption.] Order. If hon. Members will reflect on this, they will perfectly understand. The Government have no responsibility for the activities of the Conservative party. The hon. Member knows this full well, as a member of the Procedure Committee. He often reminds the House that he is a member of that Committee. I must remind him now what the procedures are. There is no responsibility, in terms of the Government, for a political party.
Mr. John Marshall: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier, we had questions about the freedom of the press. Would it be in order when discussing that subject to refer to the donations by Mr. Maxwell to the Labour party?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On several occasions recently, you have deprecated the fact that Ministers have made statements on television before making them to the House. We know that, this morning, there was an important meeting of senior Ministers at Downing street, arising out of the debacle last Thursday in the local government elections. A projection based on the returns in those elections suggests that, in a general election, nine of the 10 parliamentary seats in Derbyshire would return Labour Members. Would it not be right and proper today, as we are discussing the Finance Bill, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and the rest of the ragbag Tory Government to explain their conduct and tell the British people that they will resign, so that we can have a general election?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order for the Chair. As is often the case, he is taking advantage of the time of the House.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member made the Affirmation required by law:
David Digby Rendel.

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.).

UNFAIR DISMISSAL
That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
INSURANCE COMPANIES
That the draft Insurance Companies (Cancellation) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
COUNTY COURTS
That the draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
LEGAL AID
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Scope) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ghana) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (India) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Uganda) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ukraine) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.— [Mr. Patnick.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Finance (No. 2) Bill
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  Ordered,
  That the order in which proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Finance (No. 2) Bill are to be taken shall be Clause 42, Clause 183, Clause 48, Clause 52, Clause 67, Clause 115.[Mr. Portalo.]
  Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I understand that in the amendments that we are about to consider is one that, in one of the few instances in the history of Parliament, imposes taxation that no future British Government will be able to remove, in terms of the sixth directive, as amended. So that the House and the public may be fully informed, may I ask whether, in all future cases where taxes are imposed that cannot be removed by a future Government, the clauses concerned will be marked in a special way?
  Parliament has always had a tradition that taxes can be raised or reduced by the House of Commons. However, in cases where taxes, once imposed, cannot be removed—and there may be quite a few in the future—is there no way in which the Order Paper, or the Vote, can be specially marked so that hon. Members are well aware that what they are doing cannot be reversed?
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): That is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure, rather than for the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Ms Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I note the provisional selection of amendments and the groupings. Would it be in order for us to take all the groups together in a single debate, for the convenience of the House?
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. May I say, as the mover of one of the separate groups of amendments, that it might well be for the convenience of the Committee if we took all the groups together, and then moved as soon as possible to a vote in which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) could register his constituents' rejection of the proposal to put VAT on fuel?
  The Chairman: Hon. Members will be aware that this is a provisional selection of amendments. Although it is fair to say that the Chair has taken some care and time over it, if it is the will of the House for all the groups to be taken together, the Chair is happy with that.

Clause 42

  FUEL AND POWER FOR DOMESTIC OR CHARITY USE
  3.45 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: I beg to move amendment No. 1 in page 23, line 40, after 'use', insert 'subject to the exceptions set out in subsection 3A below'.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient also to discuss all the other amendments to clause 42: No. 4, in page 23, line 40, after 'shall', insert
  'except for supplies for domestic use'.
  No. 5, in page 23, line 40, after 'shall', insert
  'except for supplies for charity use'.
  No. 39, in page 23, line 41, leave out from 'importation' to the end of line 42 and insert
  'for domestic use made or taking place on or after 1st April 1994 and on that day notes 1(a), 2, 3 and 5 to the said group 7 shall be deleted.'.
  No. 36, in page 23, line 42, at end insert—
  'Except where the supply is for use by a charity in either or both of the following ways, namely —

  (a) otherwise than in the course of furtherance of a business

  (b) as a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a local community.'.

  No. 18, in page 24, line 17, at end insert —
  '(3A) The supplies to be excepted are —

  (a) standing charges in connection with the supply of fuel and power;

  (b) rental charges for gas and electricity meters; and

  (c) charges for installation of and connection to fuel and power supplies.'.

  No. 6, in page 23, line 42, leave out '1994' and insert '1998'.
  No. 9, in page 24, line 4, leave out '1994' and insert '1998'.
  No. 14, in page 24, line 4, leave out '1995' and insert '1999'.
  No. 15, in page 24, line 8, leave out '1994' and insert '1998'.
  No. 16, in page 24, line 8, leave out '1995' and insert '1999'.
  No. 7, in page 24, line 1, after '(2)', insert
  'For the purposes of this section'.
  No. 8, in page 24, leave out lines 3 to 8.
  No.11, in page 24, line 9, leave out '8' and insert '5'.
  No. 17, in page 24, line 9, leave out '8' and insert '0.01'.
  Ms Harman: Today, the Prime Minister is having panic meetings to discuss the damage that the country— [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not seem to have noticed what has happened. Perhaps they are not aware that today the Prime Minister is having panic meetings to discuss the damage that the country has just done to the Tory party. Instead, he should be holding a meeting to discuss the damage that the Tory party has done to the country. He is listening to the chairman of the Conservative party—
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would it be appropriate and proper —if so, I should be grateful—for you to tell us on which amendments the Committee is likely to vote later this evening?
  The Chairman: The Chair is, to a degree, in the hands of the Committee. The Chair must listen to the debate before making a decision. I certainly cannot say now when the votes will be.
  Ms Harman: The Prime Minister is listening to the chairman of the Conservative party, and to the Government Chief Whip; but he should be listening to the people of this country. Last Thursday, the Government suffered their worst county council election results ever, and their biggest by-election defeat for years. The Tory shires are down to just one. It is time for the Government

  503
  to show that they are ready to dispense with their usual arrogance and complacency, and that they are now prepared to listen.
  The first thing that the Chief Secretary must tell us today is what changes he will make to his policy. He should announce that he will drop the proposal to put VAT on gas and electricity, and on charities: that proposal had no support in the country on Thursday, and it has no support now.
  The Government have begun to talk of change —
  Mr. Ian Taylor: May I interrupt the hon. Lady before she proceeds too far with her speech? Given that she is urging the Government not to introduce taxation, will she tell us specifically how she would reduce the public sector borrowing requirement?
  Ms. Harman: The Government have allowed the PSBR to rise beyond their forecasts, and beyond the level to which they said they were prepared for it to go, because of the increase in unemployment and the lack of economic growth. Our proposals are intended to bring down unemployment, and to bring sustainable growth into the economy. That is how we intend to lower the PSBR:, we do not intend to do so by making some of the poorest and most vulnerable people—such as the elderly—pay the price of the Government's incompetence.
  What did the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) say in his election address to the people who he asked to vote for him? He did not say that he was worried about the public sector borrowing requirement; nor did he say that he would put up taxes to fill the hole in the public finances. He said, like all his Tory colleagues, that he would put down taxes. Hon. Members have had enough of the hypocrisy of Tory Members of Parliament who say one thing to their constituents before a general election and another thing after it.
  Mr. Derek Conway: I am sure that the Committee accepts that the hon. Lady expresses genuine concern about the less well-off, but if we are to take her concern to be more than skin deep, will she remind the Committee of what happened to electricity prices between 1974 and 1979, in real terms and, more specifically, what the Labour Government did to help those who were less well-off?
  Ms Harman: Under this Government, electricity and gas prices have risen faster than inflation. If the hon. Gentleman is as concerned as we are about the fuel bills of the elderly and families on low incomes, he will vote with us tonight to force the Government to keep their promises.
  The Government have begun to talk about change, but talk, without the prospect of real change in Government policies—not just on VAT but on schools, rail privatisation and, above all, the economy.
  The Prime Minister said on Friday that he would listen, that he had not been humiliated by the electorate and that it was an opportunity for him to learn. The Home Secretary admitted that the Government were in a dreadful hole, but on Sunday, speaking on BBC's "On the Record", the Chief Secretary was in his characteristically buoyant mood. Did he say that he would think again on VAT? Did he say that he would listen? No. Did he say that they had got it wrong? Did he say that they would listen? No, he did not.
  504
  Does the Chief Secretary even begin to recognise the insult that was felt by all those people who have lost their jobs or whose businesses have failed, when the Chancellor said that he had nothing to regret and then went on to hear, privately, Tory Members of Parliament say that the voters are a lagging indicator because they fail to recognise how rosy the economic prospects are? So it appears that the Chancellor regrets nothing. These are not the words of a Government who are prepared to listen but the epitaph of a Government who have been in power for too long.
  We oppose the provision to put VAT on gas and electricity because it breaks a specific election promise that was made before the last general election in the most clear, specific and unequivocal terms.
  Mr. John Bowis: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I will in a moment.
  We oppose VAT on gas and electricity because that increase will affect everyone. Everyone has to use gas and electricity. It is a basic necessity. It is not some optional extra.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teinbridge): Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: In a moment.
  We also oppose it because it will hit hardest at the elderly and those on low incomes. We oppose it, too, because it will hit charities at a time when the help that they are giving is needed by a growing number of people but when donations are falling because of the recession. Furthermore, we oppose it because this VAT extension paves the way for further VAT extensions to children's clothes, newspapers and food.
  Mr. Bowis rose—
  Ms. Harman: Before I give way to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), perhaps he will tell the House whether he is one of those Tory Members of Parliament who, while saying nothing to his constituents, fills in survey forms saying that he is in favour of extending VAT to food, children's clothes and newspapers. Perhaps we shall have a bit of honesty in Committee from Tory Members of Parliament.
  The Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), may I remind the Committee that this is a debate on the extension of VAT to fuel and power. It is not a debate on the extension of VAT to children's clothing.
  Mr. Bowis: I am one of those Conservative Members of Parliament who recalls what happened in the past. Will the hon. Lady tell us what happened when the Labour Government put VAT on sweets, ice cream, crisps and soft drinks? Was that in her party's election manifesto? Was that promised beforehand? And what measures did her party introduce to protect the very people on low incomes, including children, who were affected by that step?
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman need not delve too far back into his memory. He should cast his mind back to his own election address, in which he promised not to put up taxes but to cut them.

  505
  In a letter sent today to panic-stricken Back Benchers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it is necessary to put VAT on gas and electricity because it will set the economy to rights.
  The crisis in public finance will not be resolved until we have policies that will build a strong economy and deliver sustainable economic growth. So instead of taxing pensioners on their fuel bills, the Government should direct their attention to training and skilling our work force to the same standard as our competitors, and to creating investment incentives so that we can begin to catch up with the investment levels of our competitors. They should attend to the crumbling social and economic infrastructure that holds our economy back, but instead they are imposing a flat rate tax on one of life's essentials. Everyone will pay.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the worst problems that are faced by the poor and the old are fuel poverty, fuel hardship and fuel misery, and does not evidence show that a higher proportion of Britain's elderly people die during the winter months than in other western European countries?
  Will not the imposition of VAT make the position much worse for so many of our fellow citizens who even now cannot afford to keep their accommodation warm during the winter and who therefore find all kinds of reasons to go out and, when they are in, heat only one room? Is not their life one sheer misery during the winter and are not the Government making it worse?
  Ms Harman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Conservative Members would do well to listen to the point that is being made not only by my hon. Friend but by organisations in their constituencies concerned with elderly and disabled people.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Ms Harman: If I may, I will press on and give way later, when, perhaps, the hon. Lady will tell us what she told her constituents in Lancaster about whether she would put VAT on gas and electricity.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Ms Harman: Are we about to have a moment of truth?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady seems to be suffering from selective amnesia. Has she forgotten—she was not here at the time—that, under the previous Labour Government, electricity prices rose by 2 per cent. every six weeks and that absolutely no help was offered to meet those increases?
  Ms Harman: The trouble is that Conservative Members have selective amnesia about what they included in their election addresses.
  Everyone will have to pay VAT on gas and electricity —even those who work but earn too little to pay income tax. Almost three quarters of pensioners pay no income tax, yet all of them will have to pay VAT on their gas and electricity bills. It is unfair, as the least well-off will be hardest hit by this tax.
  For households that are fortunate enough to have more than £800 a week, the imposition of VAT on gas and
  506
  electricity will increase their bills by only half of 1 per cent., whereas the budgets of households that struggle on less than £60 a week will be stretched by another 3 per cent. After VAT at the full rate of 17·5 per cent. is included, single pensioner households on income support—some of the poorest people in the country—will spend more than one fifth of their entire budget on heating bills.
  This is a Government who do not think about what they are doing, who do not consult anyone about the effect of what they are doing and who do not listen to protests about what they are doing. They have had no discussions with organisations dealing with the elderly. If they had, they might have heard of the survey by Age Concern's institute of gerontology, which stated that pensioners often do not spend enough to heat their homes sufficiently, even to the level necessary to preserve their health. A third of pensioners surveyed did not heat their bedrooms, and nearly one quarter of those elderly people gave up other items to stay warm—mainly food. When we vote tonight, we should bear that in mind.
  4 pm
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, this country has a higher death rate from hypothermia than countries with much lower winter temperatures, such as Norway, Sweden and Switzerland and that is because of poverty.
  Age Concern was dismayed when it heard about the proposal, which came as a surprise because the Chancellor had not bothered to discuss it with the organisation. The average cost to a single pensioner will be £2 per week extra on fuel bills. There is also concern for families with children who are trying to live on a low income. In a letter to the Select Committee on Social Security, Barnardo's wrote:
  "We already have contact with many hundreds of families across the UK who have difficulties with fuel payments for whom there are already daily decisions involving a choice such as whether to turn on the heat source or to buy food."
  In this House, none of us is in that position, but when hon. Members vote tonight they should bear in mind the fact that they do not have to face that daily choice and that the lives of the people who do will be made worse if the measure is pushed through.
  Disability Alliance has said:
  "We fear that the imposition of VAT will have a devastating effect on disabled people."
  The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is certain that if the measure is pushed through it will mean more debt and more disconnections.
  If any Tory Back Benchers are wavering—
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: When I have finished my sentence.
  Any Tory Backbenchers who are considering their position should think carefully before justifying the measure to themselves on the grounds that compensation will be in the pipeline in a few months' time. They should think carefully whether they can safely rely on that pledge from Ministers.
  I shall give way to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on condition that he tells me whether he told his constituents that he would put 17-5 per cent. on the fuel bills of elderly people in his constituency.
  Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I am sure that she is right to lay such stress on

  507
  election manifestos. Will she identify which paragraph of which of the Labour party's two 1974 manifestos stated that it would put VAT on petrol, which is a fuel, and what it did to compensate motorists?
  Ms. Harman: As there is a vote tonight on the plan to impose VAT on gas and electricity, people outside this House will wonder why their representative is not prepared to deal with the issue but instead seeks to make party political points relating to some years ago. The issue is serious.
  Many Conservative Members are salving their consciences by telling themselves that it will be all right because the worst excesses of the tax will be offset by a compensation scheme further down the line. Let me remind hon. Members that the Government had not contemplated any extra compensation when they first took the decision—they were completely surprised by the outcry. Although there will be some compensation, we do not yet know the details, only that it will certainly not be full compensation, even for the poorest people in the country. Even those people will be made worse off.
  If compensation is to be linked to income-related benefits, there will be two results. First, it will deepen the poverty trap; secondly, it will not reach all those who need it. We know that there is low take-up of income-related benefits. According to the Department of Social Security, as many as one in three pensioners who are entitled to income support do not claim it. Why should hon. Members believe the promises of compensation when nobody believes this Government's promises?
  They said that they would not put VAT on gas and electricity. The Prime Minister said it, the Chancellor said it and members of the Cabinet said it. I hope that tonight, Tory Members will remember that they promised tax cuts in their election addresses. Why should a Government who promised tax cuts, but who have now put up taxes, be believed when they say: "Let us put VAT on gas and electricity now; trust us, and we will give you a compensation scheme in the autumn"? Tory Members should have demanded details of the compensation scheme to cushion the effect of VAT before voting tonight to put VAT on gas and electricity.
  Mr. David Shaw: Does the hon. Lady accept that I was one of the Conservative Members who asked for the Chancellor's statement to be clarified? The Chancellor made an excellent statement to help those on income-related benefits. Does the hon. Lady also accept that one of the reasons that I asked for that statement to be clarified was because we on the Conservative Benches have an excellent record of looking after pensioners? We did not do what the Labour party did in government in 1976, when Barbara Castle fiddled the calculation of old age pensions. The Conservative party will make sure that it does not go in for Labour party fiddles on pension increases.
  Ms. Harman: It is true that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) asked for clarification and raised the question of compensation with the Chancellor. The problem is that he stopped short of ensuring that there would be full compensation. The hon. Gentleman faces tonight exactly the same situation that he was in before he raised queries with the Chancellor. He has no details of the so-called "compensation scheme", which, as yet, simply does not exist, but we have the certainty that it will not be full compensation. We have the absolute certainty that, if the
  508
  scheme is agreed tonight, even the lowest-paid and those struggling on the lowest benefits will find that they are worse off as a result. The hon. Gentleman may have asked the question, but he failed to take note of the answer.
  The question of the effect of VAT on gas and electricity on charities is of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor boasted of extra help for charities' but charities were horrified to discover that they too are to be hit by the imposition of VAT on gas and electricity—not just VAT on the gas and electricity used by their headquarters, or by their administration, but VAT on fuel for their day centres, for their residential homes, for their respite care, for their hospices, and for the meals on wheels and laundry services.
  That is ironic, because the pattern of provision of the charity services is that it is in what were formerly known as the Tory shires—areas that elected many Conservative Members—that the charities, work is most important. Over the years, the Tory county councils have failed to build up their social services provision, so the charities have stepped in to provide residential care, domiciliary care and day centres. Therefore, the threats to charities, which say clearly that, if they have to give a great deal of money back in tax to the Government, they will have to cut their services, means that the people who will be worst affected are those who live in areas represented by Conservative Members.
  Ms Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the figures provided by the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund. In 1992, that charity disbursed more than £3 million in patient grants, of which about £850,000 were grants for fuel, cancer being one of the conditions that requires its sufferers to be treated in conditions of warmth.
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend draws attention to an irony: at the very time at which people will be looking to charities for more help with their fuel bills, charities will be in a worse position to help because of the tax that they will face on their own fuel bills.
  The figures are significant. In answer to a parliamentary question tabled by me, the Government said that, next year, charities would have to give back £10 million in VAT. The year after, charities will have to give back to the Government £25 million in VAT. That is happening at a time when charities have seen their receipts from individual donors and from companies drop as a result of the recession.
  The Charities Aid Foundation survey in December 1992 found that 64 per cent. of charities had experienced a real decrease in their total income since January 1991. Some 67 per cent. reported a fall in individual donations, and 61 per cent. a fall in corporate donations. At the same time, 90 per cent. said that their demand had increased due to higher unemployment, the fact that there were more people with debt and money problems and local authority cuts. Those were the three main reasons cited for the increased demand for charities' services.
  The work of charities is important, and the Government should reconsider the imposition of tax on them. For that reason, we ask hon. Members to consider voting for amendment No. 5.
  Sir Peter Hordern: Will the hon. Lady now give the House a pledge that the Labour party would remove VAT from heat and light if they won the next election?
  Ms Harman: If the right hon. Gentleman shares our concern—I hope that he does—we need not get that far. He and other Conservative Members should join us today in voting for amendment No. 5 which would remove the requirement to pay VAT on gas and electricity from charities, which are doing such important work.
  The Government have added insult to injury—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that, if I do, he will ask about something that has nothing to do with the debate. I do not want you, Mr. Morris, to have to rule him out of order.
  The Government have added insult to injury by claiming that this is an environmental measure. The use of gas and electricity is particularly insensitive to price. If it was simply an environmental measure, how could the Government justify putting VAT on charges for gas and electricity meters and on standing charges, which, by definition, do not vary with the amount of fuel used?
  This is not a tax to deal with the hole in the ozone layer —perhaps we can lay that suggestion to rest. It is a tax to deal with the hole in the Government's economic policy. It is not a measure from a Government who have gone green; it is a measure from a Government who have gone into the red.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: This is an opportune moment for the hon. Gentleman to rise—although I shall not give way to him —as I was about to say that the knives were out on the Tory Back Benches. The Chancellor may be the ritual midsummer sacrifice. It is said that the Chief Secretary is being mentioned as possible successor; they say that he impresses. I would only say that it would be very hard indeed for anyone not to shine when standing next to the present Chancellor. But a reshuffle at the top and a few changing faces will change nothing and fool no one. On Thursday, the voters were saying not simply that they wanted someone different doing the job, but that they wanted the job done differently.
  It is right that the Chancellor should go. He does not command the confidence of the country. His lack of credibility is yet another obstacle to our sustainable economic growth. But the voters in the shire counties and the voters in Newbury who gave their verdict on Thursday were protesting not only at the economic policies of the Chancellor, but at the economic policies of the Prime Minister.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the people of Scotland had been given an opportunity to give their verdict on the Government's policy on VAT on Thursday, they would equally have given a resounding thumbs down? In Aberdeen, temperatures can be 4 deg lower than in the south of England in the winter. Is it not appropriate that the letter sent by the diocese of Edinburgh from the Scottish
  510
  Episcopal Church speaks for people north and south of the border when it asks me and my colleagues in Scotland to register with the Government
  "our concern at the way in which the proposed increase in heating costs by the addition of VAT will be felt most by people with low incomes"?
  As the Church of England in Scotland is voicing those concerns, is it not appropriate that Tory Members who represent English constituencies take heed?
  Ms Harman: One can understand why the Conservatives have no support in Scotland. But Conservative Members should ask why people in Scotland should suffer from the cold as a result of fuel poverty when people in areas with far lower temperatures in Norway, Sweden and Switzerland do not have to suffer the cold because they do not suffer fuel poverty.
  On Sunday, the Chief Secretary rallied to the Chancellor's support. He said that the Chancellor was doing a magnificent job. He said that he was a magnificent Chancellor. He said that the Chancellor has been, is and will carry on doing a magnificent job. The Secretary of State for Social Security thinks that the Chancellor's magnificence is proved by the county council election results and the Newbury vote on Thursday.
  The problem is that, for the Government, hypocrisy has become a way of life. The Government promised not to put VAT on gas and electricity, but they did. They say that they will not extend it to children's clothes or newspapers, but they secretly plan to do just that. They say that they will listen to the voters and respect their views. In private, they insult the electorate by calling them contemptuously "a lagging indicator".
  Yesterday, the Home Secretary told us that the Government were in a dreadful hole. Tonight, Tory Members of Parliament have a chance to decide whether they will dig themselves and the Government deeper into that hole. Tonight, with their votes on VAT, on gas and electricity and on charities, Ministers will have a chance to show the people of Britain whether they are capable of change.
  Tory Back Benchers will have the chance to show the people who elected them that, even if their Government cannot listen, perhaps they can. Even if their Government cannot be trusted, is it too much to hope for that Tory Back Benchers can? Back Benchers owe it to their constituents not to follow discredited Ministers like sheep through the Division Lobby.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): Following your ruling, Mr. Morris, that we may consider all the amendments together, I hope to address all the arguments that were raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman).
  I wish to cover the question of Government finances, which provides the essential background to why the Government are proposing an extension of VAT. I wish also to discuss why the Government have chosen an extension of VAT as the means of raising part of the money that we need to raise. I certainly want to cover help for families and pensioners on low incomes, the question of standing charges, the question of charities and the environmental arguments. On my way through, I shall allude to some policies of other parties.
  I begin by discussing the question of our public borrowing position, a serious matter which requires to be addressed. This year, we have a public sector borrowing

  511
  requirement which we are estimating at about £50 billion, which is 8 per cent. of GDP. At that level, it is the highest primary PSBR in the European Community. It is obviously extremely important that the Government should have policies—[Interruption.)—for tackling that level of borrowing.
  I hear Opposition Members yelling, "Whose fault is it?" The PSBR has come about partly due to discretionary increases in spending by the Government, such as spending on the health service. At one time we were increasing spending on the health service by 4 and 5 per cent. in real terms every year, not a policy with which the Opposition disagreed. Indeed, I recall the hon. Member for Peckham, the present shadow Chief Secretary, urging us to spend more on health, education and all sorts of things.
  Much of the PSBR has also been due to spending more on the unemployed, and I do not think the Labour party would want us to do other than that. A lot of it has been do do with the fall in revenue due to the recession, which has gone on for longer than anybody realised. The interest burden—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way in due course.
  The interest burden that is accruing on those borrowings is also an important matter. Our interest burden is rising by about 9 per cent. in real terms every year. Over the next three or four years, the extra amount of interest alone that we must pay is likely to add about 1 per cent. to the ratio of public spending to GDP.
  Over the next five years, assuming the tax increases proposed in the Finance Bill, assuming that we stick to our ceilings for public spending and assuming that we return to a rate of growth in the later years of 2·75 per cent., we still envisage in 1996–97 a PSBR of £35 billion or 4·5 per cent. of GDP. All the figures are in the Red Book published with the Budget.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way in due course.
  The point I am making is that it is absolutely essential for the Government to tackle the PSBR, and the Chancellor has mad& clear in the Budget and in the Finance Bill the means by which he intends to do that. It requires next year £6·5 billion of revenue and, the following year, £10·5 billion of revenue. I believe that we are the only party which is prepared to take seriously the matter of public sector borrowing—[Interruption.] We still hear from the other parties a refusal to take such matters seriously.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said on BBC radio in January:
  "I am not talking about increasing current borrowing. I am not talking about raising income tax or national insurance or VAT'.
  So what on earth is he talking about, since he and his hon. Friends continue to talk about more public spending? The Liberal Democrats have suddenly discovered an interest in the PSBR. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) took the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently. It is a new-found interest of the Liberal Democrats—[Interruption.] I think I hear the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) yelling "Nonsense." He was not yelling that in November when he said:
  512
  "What matters to Britain is not so much the level of borrowing. National debt is at an historic low."
  It did not matter to him in March either, because in a publication entitled "The Budget Britain Needs", his party referred to
  "a public investment programme funded by extra borrowing."
  and said:
  "We have argued quite deliberately that it is necessary for the Government to borrow money."
  The interest of the Liberal Democrats in public borrowing is apparently very new-found.
  For all those reasons, I claim that the Government are unique—[Interruption]—in being interested in tackling the PSBR.
  Mr. Marlow: I am more than grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He said that with good luck, a following wind and the help of the good fairy, by 1996–97 our deficit will be 4·5 per cent. of GDP. When does he expect us to meet the convergence critieria of the Maastricht treaty?
  Mr. Portillo: As my hon. Friend can see from the figures published in the Red Book, they would not be met in the period covered by the Red Book. That is the only answer that I can give my hon. Friend.
  I have already dealt with the question of how the PSBR has got to where it is, but many of the Opposition arguments relate to the fact that the Government did not say at the time of the general election that they intended to raise VAT. The Opposition have suggested that the Government were in some way dishonest in not recognising that the recession would go on longer than anticipated. I remind the Committee that the Government were by no means alone in predicting that, throughout 1992, we would see growth in the economy of 1 per cent. Our forecast was very much in the middle of the range of those made by outsiders. We forecast 1 per cent. growth, the Confederation of British Industry forecast 1·7 per cent., the OECD forecast 2·2 per cent., James Capel forecast 1·7 per cent. and Credit Lyonnais forecast 1·7 per cent.
  We forecast a PSBR of £28 billion It has turned out to be higher than that—but the CBI forecast £18 billion, the European Commission forecast £19 billion, Goldman Sachs forecast £25 billion and James Capel forecast £24 billion. There were many other such forecasts. In other words, there is no basis for the Opposition to say that the Government could know, any more than anybody else, that the recession would last longer than we predicted at the time.
  The important point is that the Government stand for sound public finances—that is what we have always put before the people of the country—and, because the recession has gone on for so long, we have an obligation to come to the House and propose measures for dealing with it.
  Ms Angela Eagle: If the Government are so concerned about the size of the deficit, why on earth did they squander at least £5 billion in an afternoon just to save the Chancellor's face?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady, I fear, has no understanding of these things. That money does not appear as public spending—it does not appear on the PSBR either—and has no effect on the figure in question.

  513
  Why are the Government proposing to raise money from an extension of VAT? First, it is because VAT is an effective way in which to raise revenue and, by comparison with the rest of the European Community, this country has low rates and a very low range of coverage of VAT. In France, for example, the ratio of VAT to consumer spending is 13·4 per cent., in Germany it is 11·9 per cent., in Ireland 13·8 per cent., and in the United Kingdom it is only 9·6 per cent. We have one of the lowest ratios of VAT to consumer spending of any country in the EC.
  The hon. Member for Peckham, a few moments ago, was citing the practice in Norway and Sweden as an example of what we ought to do. In Norway, the ratio of VAT to consumer spending is 16·6 per cent., and in Sweden it is 14·3 per cent. Both are vastly higher than the ratio of VAT to consumer spending in the United Kingdom, so the hon. Lady is well wide of the mark. She is right to say that those are colder countries—they also have more extensive VAT.
  It is illogical for VAT to apply to commercial supplies and not to domestic supplies. We were extremely concerned in the Budget—at a time when we were anxious to make sure that the recovery could proceed and not be choked off by our measures—that we should not take measures that would hit incentives. Even in a Budget in which we had to raise taxes, we found the means to provide special help to business and raise taxes that did not hit businesses. We also found ways of raising more revenue that were consistent with our principle that we should broaden the base of our taxes rather than increase the rate. We should look to indirect taxes, rather than direct taxes which hit incentives in our economy. We saw VAT on fuel and power as an opportunity, not least because fuel prices in this country under privatisation have fallen by 8 per cent. in real terms since 1986.
  We have also said—I want to make this very clear—that VAT has two effects. It will also help us to achieve our environmental commitments, which is different from saying that we have decided to raise VAT as a means, first and foremost, of achieving our environmental objectives. Of course VAT is intended to raise revenue to tackle public borrowing. However, what the hon. Member for Peckham and the Labour party seem incapable of understanding is that a single measure can achieve two objectives. VAT will both help the public sector borrowing requirement and help us to meet our environmental commitments, to which I shall return.
  4.30 pm
  Ms. Harman: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's comments about Norway that he does not accept that we have a higher rate of death from hypothermia in the winter than Norway, Sweden and Switzerland? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he does not recognise that the higher death rate here is directly attributable to fuel poverty? Does he understand and accept that point?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady mistakenly thinks that such conditions are linked to VAT rates, but I have proved beyond doubt that they are not. As I said in my opening words, I shall deal later with fuel poverty.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: No, I shall not give way as I want to make progress.
  The Government need to raise £6·5 billion and £10·5 billion over two years. We have considered how best to raise that money and have spread the load across all sectors of society. In 1995–96 we are looking to raise £10·5 billion, of which only £2·3 billion will come from the extension of VAT. The rest of that money will come from other measures such as tax changes on dividends, company cars and married couples' allowances—changes which will impact particularly on higher rate tax payers. It has been independently estimated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the Budget will spread the inevitable need for an increase in revenue across all sectors of society and not, as the Opposition would have hon. Members believe, to pile it on the poorest.
  Extending VAT certainly has an effect on the poorest, and I shall deal with that issue in two sections as I know that there is much concern about it in the Committee—first, in relation to the poorest and, secondly, in relation to pensioners. Those are two different groups, although they overlap.
  Mr. Nicholls: When my right hon. Friend deals with those two points in that order, will he bear in mind the fact that merely helping the neediest—the pensioners—through income support will not necessarily help those pensioners who need special help? If we are to broaden the bases, we must understand that the elderly may well need help. Merely saying, as we so often do, that income support will help those in need, and the other pensioners will not need it, will not for one moment satisfy the needs in this case.
  Mr. Portillo: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall make it clear that I want to talk about that very issue.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way for a general question on that before he moves on to another topic?
  Mr. Portillo: No.
  I want to talk about our record on helping the poor. Last October the Government raised the income support rates for pensioners by £2 for a single person and £3 for a couple. That was one piece of direct help to people who are the poorest and who are pensioners. The Committee will be aware that from April this year, no one on income support is any longer required to contribute to local taxation. The amounts that have been included wihin income support for the contribution to local taxation were £1·60 for a single person and £2·80 for a couple.
  Dr. Roger Berry: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No.
  Those amounts are greater than the amounts being speculated that people on income support will have to pay extra on their fuel bills as a result of the extension of VAT, even at the full rate of 17·5 per cent. which will not take effect for two years. Those are important changes and I shall tell the Committee how they work out.
  A single unemployed person over 25 on income support has had his average disposable weekly income increased by £3·15 a week, and the disposable income of an 80-year-old couple on income support is now £9·35 more on average than it was last April. That means that, for the first time,

  515
  the income support for those people has now moved over £100 a week. It may be that the increases that the Government have made in their help to the poorest people have been so numerous and so large that the Committee is out of touch.
  Let me remind the Committee that the higher pensioner premium for those on income support now stands at £23·55 for a single person and £33·70 for a couple who are over 80 or disabled. Those are additional benefits given to those people to take care of their special needs and it is worth bearing them in mind.
  Dr. Berry rose—
  Mrs. Margeret Ewing rose—
  Mr. Connarty rose—
  Mr. Portillo: Despite all that I have said, we undertook to give extra help to the poorer pensioners and to those people on income-related benefits and to increase the cold weather payments. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Peckham said, it was included in the Budget statement and stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on Budget day.
  We made it clear that extra help would be available before the first fuel and power bills with VAT arrive next April and that the exact nature of what we intended to do would be included in the autumn uprating statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security who is obliged by statute to take everything into account in deciding what the appropriate uprating should be.
  I now turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I know that he is concerned about pensioners who are not on income support as well as those who are.
  Mr. Michael Stern rose—
  Mr. Portillo: Perhaps I could remind him of some of the Budget arithmetic. We need to bear in mind the fact that it is necessary to raise revenue to deal with the public sector borrowing requirement, and that VAT on fuel and power will raise £2·3 billion in 1995–96. Out of that, automatically through the effect on the retail prices index, and the effect of that on the uprating of benefits, there will be £300 million spent in 1995–96 and £600 million in 1996–97. That is absolutely without reference to the extra help that I referred to previously.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Portillo: In a moment.
  Our record on pensioners is also a good one. Pensioners' average income has risen by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Following an amendment, or an innovation brought in by the Labour Government, we now offer all people during their working life times the opportunity to be in SERPS or to be contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme into an occupational or personal pension scheme.
  In April, thanks to our success in reducing inflation, the uprating of pensions was 3·6 per cent. whereas the retail prices index figure for April was 1·9 per cent. The effect of that on a pensioner couple's income is compensation of £1·60 over and above the retail prices index. Opposition Members may sneer, but that is very close to the amount
  516
  which it is speculated the extra cost of VAT on fuel and power will come to when the full 17·5 per cent. rate comes into effect in two years' time.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Portillo: I have promised to give way to some other hon. Friends, and I have already given way to my hon. Friend once.
  We have a problem, in that we have scarce resources which we therefore need to be able to target. Wherever we draw the line between those who are defined as in special need, because they are in poverty, and others, there will always be people just above that line whom my hon. Friends will believe to be especially deserving.
  Mr. William Powell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Portillo: We must also recognise that there are benefits, such as housing benefit and council tax benefit, which are payable to people who are not on income support. One and a half million pensioners will benefit from what we have already announced, and we intend to go on giving extra help to the poorest people. One and a half million pensioners who are not on income support will benefit through council tax benefit and housing benefit —2·25 million households in all will benefit, including the 1·5 million pensioners.
  It is necessary to draw lines somewhere. I believe that it would be unrealistic to give extra help to all pensioners over and above the RPI effect. I remind my hon. Friends that pensioners will benefit from that effect. If we were to take extra measures to try to identify the impact of fuel bills over and above the RPI effect felt by pensioners and all others, we might be talking about another £1 billion on benefits. My hon. Friends will recognise that that would wash away a great deal of the revenue being raised in this way—
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it in order for the Chief Secretary to address the House with this posture? He seems to be arranged in such a way that he can see all who want to intervene and are sitting behind him but none of those in front of him. Would it be possible to ask you to ask the Chief Secretary to adjust his crooked posture?
  The Chairman: I am grateful that, for once, an hon. Member is addressing the Chair.
  Mr. Portillo: I give way again to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge.
  Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for dealing specifically with this point. I hope that he can clarify another point for me. He has referred to the fact that rebates on council tax can take account of the circumstances of a pensioner who, although not on income support, clearly needs help. Am I right in thinking that the amount of rebate available through that mechanism was set without reference to the impact that VAT on fuel bills will have? Surely, if that is the mechanism to be used to help these pensioners, there should be some flexibility for building into the calculation the fact that they now face extra bills at a time when many of them are already having their incomes cut by depreciating interest rates.
  Mr. Portillo: All pensioners, whether on income support or not, will be compensated for the impact on the

  517
  retail prices index of extending VAT to fuel and power. In addition, those on income-related benefits will be compensated, especially and in advance. Whereas it is generally believed that there are people above the income support line who might also require some help, it is perhaps not always realised that 1·5 million pensioners who are not on income support will receive compensation through the uprating of benefits due to the RPI, and extra help because their council tax benefit and their housing benefit will be adjusted, by means of the special help that we are discussing.
  Mr. Stern: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will allow me to pursue the point a little. Many people, not necessarily pensioners, live in hard-to-heat homes and are trapped in those houses either because they are council tenants or because they suffer from negative equity. Their council tax benefit or housing benefit, if any, bears no relation to the fact that their fuel costs are much higher than average. In the scheme of compensation that my right hon. Friend is planning, will he take those facts into account so that people will not inadvertently lose out because, for instance, they moved into a Parkinson house, from which the heat leaks away through the walls?
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend draws attention to a well-known difficulty. When we moved from supplementary benefit to income support, we did not think it right to continue the whole range of special payments made to people in various circumstances—the so-called single payments. Since then, we have relied heavily on identifying the people who have the greatest need to heat their homes: the elderly and the very elderly, who attract premiums under income support, the disabled who do the same, and those with children who also attract them. That is how we have dealt with the problem on the basis of many years of experience.
  Dr. Berry: Will the Chief Secretary recognise that the reason why pensioners and many other people are angry about what is happening is that on 27 March last year the Prime Minister clearly said:
  "We have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT"?
  Was that statement based on ignorance, dishonesty or both?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman's question was clearly based on ignorance, as I dealt with it in the first part of my speech.
  Mrs. Browning: I must draw my right hon. Friend's attention back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) about pensioners and people who are not on income-related benefits. My right hon. Friend has said that it would be impossible to make any alteration in the RPI calculation, but that calculation will be a national average which does not take into account the disproportionate amount of money spent on fuel by retired people and people with disabilities. In the west country, the additional benefits that he has mentioned—from council tax benefit, for instance—have
  518
  been sopped up by the additional charges that people have had to pay for water, so this will hit them particularly hard.

  If my right hon. Friend, within the RPI formula, were to take account of those much higher charges and the money were paid to pensioners on higher incomes, he would at least recoup the money through the tax system, because pensioners with higher incomes pay tax like everyone else. That would at least ensure that pensioners who do not have income-related benefits but who are not exactly well off have their fuel charges covered.
  Mr. Portillo: It is well understood that what most concerns us is that we should compensate pensioners through the RPI; but the amount that many of them spend on fuel and power may figure disproportionately in what they spend. There is a great danger, however, in seeking to compensate people for particular items of expenditure. We have always sought to raise benefits by the retail prices index, or by the Rossi index, according to what was right. If, since 1979, we had looked at the things that pensioners spend most money on, we would have excluded from their index mortgage interest payments, because pensioners do not spend much on them. The result would have been, as the Secretary of State for Social Security has pointed out several times, that today's pension would be £6·65 less than it is. That would have been the result of picking and choosing our way through the index, trying to find out what pensioners spend their money on.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: This leaves us in an odd position. I will still have to tell pensioners in my constituency, "I am sorry that you will not get any help —but if you went to the Royal Opera House, you would get help, because the Government subsidise it to the tune of £30 per seat per show." Why do we subsidise people's pleasure to the tune of £700 million while punishing pensioners at the other end of the scale? If my right hon. Friend cut out overseas aid and subsidies for the arts tomorrow, there would be no need to be doing any of this.
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend certainly anticipates some of the arguments that will arise during a very difficult public spending round indeed. He talked about penalising people for saving. It is a very difficult problem: how to devise a benefit system which, on the one hand, provides a safety net for people—which means that we have to have an income-related system and to be aware of their means and capital—and, on the other hand, avoids excessively penalising people who have shown thrift throughout their lives. Those are serious problems which cannot be solved easily.
  We are, of course, now committed to embarking on a review of social security and to looking at the balance between targeting and universal benefit. These are genuinely difficult problems, and the questions that my hon. Friends are raising about the people who are just above the income support level are obviously questions which we shall have to think about very carefully indeed.
  Mr. Peter Fry: Does my right hon. Friend not appreciate that, despite all his talk about second pensions, about 1·5 million to 2 million people, many of them living in their own homes, so that they do not get any housing benefit, do not have a second pension and very often have no extra income at all? Is he aware that, on the night when the original Budget resolutions

  519
  were put, I asked our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there would be recognition of the plight of that sector of the community, and he said that of course there would. Does my right hon. Friend accept that what he explained this afternoon falls a long way short of reassuring me about the fate of those people who do not have that extra income? Would he like to comment on that?
  Mr. Portillo: If my hon. Friend reads what I have said, he will not reach that conclusion. I have pointed out that the retail prices index will be adjusted, and that will be of general help to pensioners. I have pointed out that we will give special help to people on income-related benefits; that 1·5 million pensioners and 2·25 million households altogether, above the income support level will benefit; and that 8 million households altogether will benefit from special measures that we are taking.
  The people to whom my hon. Friend refers as living on their own may none the less be in receipt of council tax benefit. If they have only their state pension, and no occupational pension, they will certainly be on income-related benefit. That is where I believe the help should be concentrated, because we have a system that identifies the people who are most in need and brings help to them.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I really do want to get on. We are in Committee and there will be time for hon. Members to make their points.
  Turning to the question of standing charges, VAT is normally chargeable on the whole of a charge—
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No, I have already given way to my hon. Friend.
  VAT is normally chargeable on the whole of a charge for supply, both the fixed and the variable element. If we were to exclude standing charges from VAT that would mean a substantial reduction in the revenue and we would then have to seek that revenue elsewhere. It would be administratively extremely inefficient to exclude standing charges, and it would certainly mean that in the long term the industries would be given the opportunity to restructure the way in which they charged people in order to avoid VAT falling on their supplies.
  However, most important of all, perhaps, is that the effect of what the Opposition are proposing would be no help to the people in most need —that is, the people who pay for their electricity and gas supplies through slot meters. They are often the poorest people, and many have smaller standing charges than other people. Therefore, paradoxically and perversely, what the Opposition are proposing would, I believe, leave those people in the worst position of all.
  The general approach of the Government to charities is that we should give tax relief for all those who wish to give to charity, rather than seek to give relief to charities on the items that they purchase. The advantage of that is that the charities that are best able to attract public support are the ones which get the subsidy from the taxpayer. It is extremely difficult to sort out the purchases that are made by charities from those that are made by other taxpayers.
  The hon. Member for Peckham said that the extension of VAT to charities would affect them by £25 million. I
  520
  should like to put that in some sort of context by pointing out to the Committee that tax relief on charitable giving is now running at over £900 million a year.
  The Government have a magnificent record of introducing reforms that have been of particular help to charities. In 1980, for example, we introduced a reduction in the length of time that a covenant to a charity had to run from seven to four years. In 1987, we introduced payroll giving, and we introduced gift aid in 1990. According to the latest figures, £307 million has now been contributed through gift aid. We are now spending £2·68 billion on the voluntary sector. All these figures absolutely dwarf the one that the hon. Member for Peckham mentioned.
  None the less, we were well aware that, under this Budget, charities would have to pay more in VAT, and we therefore sought a reform within the Finance Bill that would be of benefit to charities. We have extended payroll giving and gift aid, and the benefit of that is about £30 million, which broadly matches the impact of VAT on charities through fuel and power.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) says from a sedentary position that it is different charities, but the Opposition are proposing the maintenance of an exemption for charities that would mean that Eton college, for example, would continue to benefit from VAT relief. Indeed, for all I know, Eton college might benefit more than Help the Aged from VAT relief. The Labour party is proposing that we should set up arbitrary distinctions between, for instance, care homes that are run in the private sector and those that are run by charities.
  I therefore believe that the Committee will agree that the Government have set out in the Finance Bill to provide an equivalent measure of compensation for charities to enable them to cope with the extra imposition of VAT.
  Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend rightly makes the point that there are different kinds of charities. It might be sensible to consult the charities on how they would like their tax relief. Is he aware that there is a particular kind of charity, particularly in rural and semi-rural constituencies—village halls? Many of us have had a large number of letters from village halls about the concern that is felt regarding what they may have to pay next year or the year after because of VAT on fuel. I appreciate that we are dealing with a hypothetical situation, because nobody knows what will happen to the prices of electricity and gas over the next two or three years. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to listen very sympathetically to representations from Conservative Members—and, no doubt, Opposition Members—on behalf of village halls, if they get into difficulty as a result of VAT on fuel?
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes a most interesting point. As he says, time will tell and perhaps we can learn from experience. He may have had in his mind, when he asked the question, a point that I had already made—that fuel prices have been falling recently and we are looking at phasing in this increase over two years. But we will, of course, look very carefully at the impact of the change on village halls.
  Ms Harman rose—
  Mr. Portillo: Yes, I have been on my feet a long time, and I will give way.
  Ms Harman: Will the Chief Secretary recognise that, even leaving on one side the drop in donations to charities by individuals and companies, the effect of the Budget is to cut income to charities? Although, as he has mentioned, they will get additional relief from payroll giving and gift aid, they will lose out on VAT on their gas and electricity, and they will also see a drop in their income from dividends because of the reduction in relief for advance corporation tax? While the Government estimate that that will be about £50 million, the charities estimate that it will cost them about £100 million.
  5 pm
  Mr. Portillo: The dividends come under a separate clause, but the hon. Lady needs to bear in mind that what we are talking about in that clause is a reduced rate of compensation for a tax liability that does not arise for charities. Charities are exempt from taxes on their income and at the moment they are getting a credit on their dividends, which they can cash in. Obviously, reducing the rate of credit reduces their income. That is why the hon. Lady will discover within those provisions, when we reach them, special transitional arrangements for charities to help them with that.
  Environmental questions have been raised. As I have said previously, the Bill is intended to raise revenue; there are no two ways about that. It also helps significantly to achieve our environmental commitments. The 150 countries that were signatories to the Rio convention signed up to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 level by the year 2000. We predict that we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 10 million tonnes by the year 2000 or by about 6 per cent.
  We have taken a range of measures to bring that about, some of which are directed to better fuel efficiency. They include the setting up of the Energy Savings Trust, which is to bring together the Government, British Gas and the electricity supply industry under the chairmanship of my noble Friend, Lord Moore, to find schemes that will enhance energy efficiency and make grants for those schemes. We are putting our trust in that body to achieve carbon reductions of 2·5 million tonnes on that programme alone.
  The VAT increase that we are talking about and the increase in petrol prices that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor mentioned in the Budget will each achieve carbon reductions of 1·5 million tonnes. That will leave a gap of 3 million tonnes of carbon for the Government to be able to meet the commitments that they made at the Rio convention. I know that it has been suggested that the gap should be filled by way of a carbon tax. I think that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General may wish to say something about that when he winds up. I would simply say that there are considerable doubts about the efficacy or appropriateness of a carbon tax. We will have to consider such factors extremely carefully as discussions progress within the EC.
  I commend the VAT proposals to the Committee. I have been astonished by the way in which Opposition parties have criticised the Government on this when, in the past, they wished to extend VAT and made their wishes clear. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, for example, always wriggles when this quote is mentioned to him, but he knows perfectly well that a Liberal party document called "Costing the Earth" said:
  522
  "The Liberal Democrats advocate as a first priority the imposition of a tax on energy … The UK is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT on domestic fuels … if it proved completely impossible to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes, we would nevertheless press forward …by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel."
  That really could not be clearer.
  Mr. Beith rose—
  Mr. Portillo: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to say that it was only a Green Paper and not Liberal party policy, he may say so and we shall treat that comment with our customary derision.
  Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that document was not party policy and did not become so? If he would like to have the Conservative party election manifesto compared with ours and see which party is sticking to its manifesto, that would do for us.
  Mr. Portillo: My predictions about what the right hon. Gentleman would say were absolutely correct.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend read a little further into Liberal party documents? Not only does "Costing the Earth" contain the quotations that he used, but "Policy Briefing 22", which came out in October 1991, gave the same commitment. "Changing Britain for good", which was the manifesto on which the party fought the election, says:
  "Our new Energy Tax is this manifesto's key proposal in this area."
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes his point supremely well. He has set the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed gibbering with fury that he has been discovered.
  The Labour party has been just the same, from top to bottom. The Leader of the Opposition said in his election address when he was seeking to be elected leader of the party:
  "We should consider the increased use of the fiscal system to promote environmental protection and conservation." What did he mean by that if he did not mean taxes on fuel?
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said in Green Magazine in February that he believed in increasing VAT on environmentally unfriendly products. He went further and said:
  "If I was Secretary of State now I would twist the Chancellor's arm right up his back to see these measures implemented."
  We know that the Labour party spokesman in the House of Lords, Lord Desai, who has now been fired, said in Tribune on 6 May:
  "I would remove zero rating for VAT on all items."
  What was so extraordinary, as the House saw on Thursday, was that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in Treasury Question Time, used that quote and made it clear that it came from Tribune that day. A moment later, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned the quote and the Leader of the Opposition said that it came from the days when Lord Desai was not an Opposition spokesman. I have never seen anyone fall more clearly into a trap. Sitting next to him were the hon. Members for Peckham and for Dunfermline, East, both of whom knew that the quote came from Tribune that day. However, neither of them cared to warn the Leader of the Opposition about the trap into which he was walking.

  523
  It is extraordinary that Tribune is never read. It has reached the position that television reached for Noel Coward, who said that television was a thing for appearing on, not a thing for watching. Now it appears that.Tribune is a thing for writing in but not something for Labour party members to read.
  The hon. Members for Peckham and for Dunfermline, East led their general straight into a disaster and sent him charging off between the trenches. They knew that that quote was current and of the day, but they let the Leader of the Opposition fall into that trap. With a general misled by his brigadiers, the Labour party's response was to fire the corporal. Poor Lord Desai has now been sacked as a spokesman in the House of Lords. On behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, let me say that we shall miss him greatly.
  The humiliation that the Leader of the Opposition suffered on Thursday, the rout that he endured in the House of Commons, led him, over the weekend, suddenly to stir up a campaign on VAT on fuel and power. That from a Labour party which has never once addressed the question of public borrowing or committed itself to controlling public spending. The Government are prepared to face up to those serious issues. We understand that, in order to control public borrowing and to pursue a responsible fiscal policy, we have to take unpopular decisions. Only a natural party of opposition—the Labour party—could believe that one can govern without any pain and that it is possible to get control of public borrowing without taking unpopular decisions.
  The Conservative party is committed to responsible government and sound public finances. It is willing to take the decisions necessary. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the amendments.
  Mr. Beith: I do not know how the Government have the face to go ahead with their proposals after Thursday's result in Newbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who is sitting beside me, received the votes of more than 37,000 electors, who expressed their anger about this and other aspects of Government policy so clearly and decisively that a Government who were listening and learning would have asked the House today for time to reconsider the fuel tax proposal and to come up with a better way of dealing with the hole that they have created in the public finances.
  The Government go on at us about the state of those finances, but it was they who secured the prolonging of the recession and they who said that it would not last so long. According to their manifesto and their election campaign, recovery would come as soon as the ballot boxes had closed on polling day and it was clear that they would remain in power. It was they who insisted that they did not and would not need new taxes. We made no such claim; we evinced no such bravado about the ability of Government to survive without new taxes, or tax increases, in any circumstances.
  All the Chief Secretary's talk this afternoon about how only a natural party of government like the Conservative party ever considers unpopular measures such as raising taxes is absolute nonsense. There was not a word about that during the general election campaign, which was all about lowering taxes. It was we who said that, in some circumstances, we would be prepared to raise them, if there was a strong and legitimate case for doing so.
  524
  We heard none of that from the Government; but, during the Newbury by-election campaign, we heard plenty on the doorsteps about the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power. We collected thousands of signatures from people who objected strongly to the proposal, and those of us who were canvassing the local elections around the country heard the same message time and again.
  If the Government are listening and learning, to what and to whom are they listening and what have they learnt? They do not appear to be listening to their own Back Benchers, who have expressed doubt and concern about aspects of their proposals. Some pertinent questions have been raised this afternoon.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beith: I am almost reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has got in twice already. However, I shall do so.
  Mr. Nicholls: In that spirit of friendship, I wanted to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to disown what was said in his own party's Green Paper and election manifesto—that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of putting a tax on energy. Will he take that opportunity and disown the pledges that were given then?
  Mr. Beith: On the contrary, I shall take the opportunity to read the proposal which another hon. Member misquoted so ludicrously. We said in our manifesto that we would
  "support a Community-wide energy tax on all energy sources … related to levels of carbon dioxide emitted".
  We said that that would
  "provide a strong incentive for saving energy and investing in cleaner sources. Extra revenue raised through the tax will be fed back into the economy reducing other taxes such as VAT".
  That is the part that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) did not quote—the proposal to reduce VAT.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beith: No. If the hon. Gentleman ever quotes me accurately, I shall be prepared to listen to his interventions. Moreover, I have not finished the quotation; apparently, the hon. Gentleman does not wish to hear the rest of it.
  We said that we would act by
  "reducing other taxes such as VAT and by protecting those least able to adapt to the higher price of energy."
  Not only our manifesto, but even the "Costing the Earth" document—which did not become party policy—contained a string of proposals to invest in energy efficiency: to invest resources in the communities that found it most difficult to cope with high energy costs. It is ludicrous to quote a proposal to reduce VAT as if it were a proposal to increase VAT.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan rose—
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Phil Gallie rose—
  Mr. Beith: I shall give way later, when it is less difficult to choose which Conservative intervention to take. The Chief Secretary argued—[Interruption.] Perhaps I will give way after all, to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  Sir Teddy Taylor: To maintain the high standard of honesty claimed by the Liberal Democrats, will the right hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear—not only to the voters of Newbury—that, no matter how much money the Liberal Democrats might gain through a new energy tax, that money could not be used to cut VAT? If the Government's proposals are accepted, a future Labour or Liberal Democrat Government will be able to do nothing about it.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman at least make it clear that VAT cannnot be reduced, because of EC obligations which I thought his party supported? I am not attacking him; I am merely asking him to tell the people the truth. Then his party might get on even better.
  Mr. Beith: I do not agree. It is possible for any member country to have different VAT rates from the rest of the Community. A number of member countries have far lower rates than our existing 17·5 per cent. and it is open to us to apply lower rates to various of the commodities on which that rate is now levied.
  However—as the hon. Gentleman well knows—it appears that, under Community law, if we surrender the zero rate on fuel tonight, we shall never be able to restore it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to remind Ministers that their proposal appears to constitute an irrevocable removal of the zero rate—one that they cannot go back on. That is another argument for not surrendering the zero rate to raise more money and for devising a more effective form of energy taxation.
  This is not, and was not intended to be, a genuine energy tax. The Chancellor made it clear to the Treasury Select Committee that the primary motive for the proposal was to raise revenue, and the Chief Secretary devoted much of his speech to explaining the reasons why that was necessary. No money from this tax will increase energy efficiency. It is not a device to transfer money from energy users to measures that will lead to less use of energy. It is indiscriminate: it draws no distinction between energy raised by coal burning and that raised by oil burning, wind power or tidal forces. All are treated in exactly the same way. This is not a serious energy measure.
  5.15 pm
  The tax will be applied not only to energy used, but to the fixed standing charge, which bears no relation to the amount of energy that a person uses. How can it be an euergy tax designed to encourage people to use less energy, when it applies to an amount over which their use of energy exercises no control? Moreover, by and large, it is not targeted at people who have much choice about how much energy they use.
  Many who will be hardest hit by the tax do not have control over the energy efficiency of their homes, because they do not own them—or, as a Conservative Member pointed out, because they are victims of negative equity, stuck in their houses without the resources to make them more energy-efficient. Often, they have not the means to do so either: they cannot afford to take out an extra mortgage and put some capital into real energy efficiency improvements.
  No new resources will come from this measure to be directed at some of the valuable schemes that exist, such as the neighbourhood energy action schemes—schemes that are making a limited but extremely valuable contribution
  526
  to improve energy efficiency. Many more resources would be needed to offset the effects of the tax on vulnerable groups.
  We know that poorer households spend a larger proportion of their income on fuel. A study by the university of York suggested that the tax will lead to single pensioner households spending over 20 per cent. of their budget on fuel following the introduction of the 17·5 per cent. rate. The 1991 family expenditure survey showed that, even then, the poorest 20 per cent. spent 11 per cent. of their total income on fuel; the average was 5 per cent. and for the richest it was only 3 per cent.
  Poorer people are more likely to live in rented accommodation and to be unable to improve insulation very much. They are less likely to have central heating and more likely to use pre-payment meters, which generally mean higher standing charges. I have yet to find out precisely how the VAT system will affect those who have to buy tokens for such meters, but it will almost certainly disadvantage them.
  Winter Action on Cold Homes estimates that, of the 7 million households that rely on social security for most of their income, only 13 per cent. have energy-efficient homes, nearly 50 per cent. have no central heating and only a third have adequate loft insulation. All the organisations that know most about the matter have spoken out vigorously. The citizens advice bureaux have expressed concern about the potential increase in the number of people disconnecting themselves from their electricity supply. The Child Poverty Action Group has opposed the measure and pensioner's organisations such as Age Concern—along with organisations representing the disabled—have spoken of the likely impact on those whom they know best.
  Families with children, on average, have higher fuel bills as a proportion of income, especially single parents and those with young babies. The unemployed are likely to spend more time at home and hence will have higher fuel bills. Those with chronic sickness and disability spend more time indoors and so have higher fuel costs. They often need extra heating in any case—and extra hot water, if they need to bath or wash clothes more often as a result of a number of health conditions.
  Ms Liz Lynne: My right hon. Friend has mentioned health conditions. Does he agree that, if people cannot heat their homes to keep warm, problems will be caused for hospitals, which will have to take on even more cases than they have at present? I met members of the Rochdale pensioners association this morning and I know that many of my constituents are desperately worried. They fear that, if they cannot keep warm, they will eventually have to go into hospital.
  Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many ill-thought-out measures which bear hard on one group show up in the public expenditure requirements somewhere else, sooner or later. They lead to precisely what my hon. Friend has said, and in the end lead to higher costs for the national health service in another area. That is only part of the argument. What is much worse is that it involves a deterioration in pensioners' health. We do not want them in hospital in the first place, but it turns out to be a false economy if the result is higher costs for the NHS.
  My hon. Friend speaks for a constituency in the north of England. My constituency is even further north than

  527
  hers. Those of us who represent colder parts of the country —Scotland, Wales and the north of England, exposed parts of the country and remote communities—know how much our constituents will be affected by this proposal.
  Mr. Gallie: I, too, have a constituency in the north of the country. If all those people are going to suffer, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, why does he still push his carbon tax? Did the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends support the coal industry recently? Would not a carbon tax hit all the people to whom he referred? Would it not amount to a great penalty on the coal industry?
  Mr. Beith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he knows the electricity industry particularly well, that industry is expecting and will have to face higher taxation of energy, but to make any sense it has to be directed at the environmental objectives which the Government have accepted. It must not be indiscriminate. It has to be managed in such a way that it is not visited most heavily upon those who can least afford it. That is our double objection to the VAT proposals.
  The hon. Gentleman is not facing reality if he assumes —I am sure that he does not, because he is involved with the industry—that there will be no increase in energy taxation. He should face that reality and encourage his hon. Friends to accept only a European energy tax which is directed at the saving of energy, where we can save it, and which at the same time is accompanied by measures to ensure that those who can least afford the impact to be hard on them are properly protected and helped. None of those objectives is satisfied, as the previous exchanges demonstrated.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that a better way to tackle the problem is to encourage—perhaps by tax breaks of a different sort —incentives that are aimed at introducing greater efficiency in the use of energy? Sometimes that involves large tax breaks for people who are prepared to invest large amounts of money in efficiency-saving technology and devices rather than the imposition of a carbon tax.
  Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should give tax incentives for energy efficiency measures. We have argued that case in debates on successive Budgets. He must see the inherent absurdity of putting VAT on domestic fuel and still charging it on the various means by which pensioners could reduce their fuel bills.
  The implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is also right: there are areas—industry, for example, which already has to pay VAT on fuel—where significant energy savings could be made if there were sufficient economic incentive to make them. They would result in far greater energy savings than can be made by pensioners in their homes, certainly under a system that provides them with so little help to make savings.

  To complete the list of those who will be particularly badly affected by VAT on fuel and power, some people cannot claim income-related benefit; many pensioners are above income support level; students usually live in rented accommodation and have minimal control over its energy efficiency. Those of us who have lived in student accommodation can remember stuffing silver paper in the cracks, of the doors to keep out the draught, and the various other simple energy efficiency measures that we had to adopt. Any group of people who are not entitled to
  528
  income-related benefit and who are likely to be living in energy-inefficient accommodation will suffer particularly badly from this proposal.
  What was also noticeable in the local elections was the resentment of many people on low incomes and of pensioners who have a small additional income, who find that they will have to bear the full cost of VAT on fuel and power. They will not be compensated in any way. A great many of those people voted for us in the local elections.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: When did the Liberal Democrat party decide to ditch its intellectually honest document "Costing the Earth", which specifically stated that exceptions could not be made, even in the case of people on low incomes, and that their cases would have to be dealt with through the social security system? I will give the right hon. Gentleman the quotation later. Clearly, he has not read his own document. Does he acknowledge that the Government, by means of the non-fossil fuel levy for electricity, have dealt with non-fossil fuel subsidy? As the right hon. Gentleman wants to deny that policy, what does he expect his energy tax percentage to be when it is first levied?
  Mr. Beith: Our policy was made clear in our general election manifesto—as, we presumed, was the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party. The Conservative party's policy was that there was no need for any additional taxation of energy, or for additional taxation of any kind whatsoever. Although the hon. Gentleman, and others, attacked us for proposing modest increases in the taxation of petrol, even though our proposals contained many compensation elements for those who would be affected by them, we stated honestly that we thought that an increase would be necessary. However, the Government have put up the price of petrol by more than we proposed. The hon. Gentleman says nothing about that and makes no complaint about it. Comparisons should be made on the basis of what we put before the electorate at the general election.
  Mr. Milligan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beith: No, I must get on with my speech.
  Other groups will be particularly badly affected by this proposal. They, too, will not be adequately compensated. Compensation, for example, that is determined by the basket of items that form the means of assessing the retail prices index will not compensate a family or pensioners for the cost of the tax on fuel. There are further problems with income-related benefits. Many people who qualify for them do not take them up. That is another reason why income-related benefits will not lead to adequate compensation.
  I mentioned earlier another reason why the Government are unwise to proceed in this way. It is fairly clear that European law does not provide for the zero rating on fuel and power that we have enjoyed until now. Our ability to enjoy a zero rating rests upon the fact that we already have it. The Government are willingly and deliberately surrendering this exemption at a stroke, with no prospect of reintroducing it. They must therefore intend to keep VAT at this level on fuel and power. They obviously have no doubts about it.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beith: No, I must get on.

  529
  We have offered a number of amendments that would enable us to retain VAT exemption. We have tabled fallback amendments, by means of which we invite Conservative Members who insist upon going down this road at least to limit VAT on fuel and power to a smaller amount—for example, to 5 per cent.—or at least not to go from 8 to 17·5 per cent. However, that is only a second best. It would be far better not to lose the exemption.
  Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman says that under European law we are constrained with regard to taxes on energy. Can he tell us which instrument was passed by the House of Commons which gave the Europeans that authority and whether he was aware of that fact at the time?
  Mr. Beith: I would not presume to offer an answer to that question without checking, first, the sources and references, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me—unusually, because we normally disagree—on the point that the surrender of this zero exemption is likely to be irreversible and that that is presumably what the Government intend. Therefore I invite Conservative Members not to let the Government do it tonight. During these proceedings, a number of Conservative Members have expressed anxieties and doubts, for their concerns have not been met. As they know that it will be irrevocable, they must not go into the Division Lobby in support of the provision. There are far too many doubts and far too many anxieties.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beith: No, I must continue my speech.
  I have read again the Chancellor's reasoning before the Treasury Select Committee for the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power. I should mention in passing that VAT is to be imposed on domestic fuel and power. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), perhaps by a slip of the tongue, implied repeatedly in her speech that VAT will be imposed on just gas and electricity, but that is not so. It will be imposed on gas, electricity, oil, logs, peat, ducted air—anything that we care to name.
  Mr. Noon: And coal.
  Mr. Beith: Yes, coal as well.
  People who live in rural areas have little choice about fuel. For example, they do not have the gas option. They have keen and strong feelings about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury pointed out to me earlier that that point was made on the doorstep in many villages. Many people in rural communities are worried about the effect on oil prices, for they do not have the same choice of fuel as others do.
  When the Chancellor gave evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, he said:
  "I could have extended VAT to other items and, indeed, I am strongly tempted to at times."
  There we have it. We have a Chancellor who spends rarely a week without thinking of the possibility of extending VAT to other items. This man is dangerous. He is subject to many temptations and when he succumbs to them he has no regrets. That is why he is a walking invitation to people to vote Liberal Democrat. For the narrowest of
  530
  party reasons, we should like to keep him, but for the broader reasons of national interest, the economy and this proposal we think that it is time he went.
  The Chancellor is tempted to extend VAT not only to domestic fuel but to many other items as well. This tax does not make sense, it is not a well-directed tax, it is not an environmental tax, and the Committee should reject it tonight.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. William Powell: Tonight, I shall vote with the Opposition. It will be only the second time in 10 years that I have been unable to support my party in the Lobby. The previous time was when the Tory party made a preposterous proposal to extend proportional representation to elections in Northern Ireland. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in his place, because he and I joined the Ulster Unionists in opposing the appalling idea that proportional representation is a relevant means of deciding any election. That is how strongly I feel about this matter. In making this proposal, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made a serious error of judgment. Indeed, I would take it one step further: I feel ashamed that my party could make such a proposal. I know that my constituents would feel ashamed of me if I were to vote for it. That is how important the issue is.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who 20 years ago piloted through the House the original VAT law, has repeatedly told the House that the structure of VAT has stood the test of time. Under different Governments and five different Prime Ministers, the basic structure of VAT, as established about 20 years ago, has been accepted on both sides of the Chamber. This is the first substantial breach of those rules. Of course, there have been fringe extensions, which can be important in themselves, but this is not a fringe extension, because it extends VAT into a different area from any that the House contemplated. I shall be interested to see how my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing votes, because he has repeatedly commended to the House the basic structure that was laid down in 1972.
  Opposition spokesmen referred to election promises that were made only a year ago. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made those statements, and when they were supported by other leaders of my party, I believed that they meant them. I made them to my constituents and when I did so I meant them, and I mean them today. I have no intention of saying to any of my constituents, "When I said that to you a year ago, it was only a conditional promise against the possibility that things might change."
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer justifies this substantial change in policy on the ground that circumstances today are very different from what they were a year ago and that therefore we must approach the new circumstances in a different light. Of course the recession has been longer and deeper than my right hon. Friend thought at the time. However, if it were necessary for him to raise taxes—and he judged that it was—he could have chosen many other taxes to raise, rather than extend VAT and so raise tax in this way.
  Circumstances have not changed so much that this extension to the law is essential. It is, I suppose, just possible to envisage certain circumstances—if the country

  531
  were involved in a world war, for example—in which one would be justified in saying to one's constituents that, as the situation was now totally different, fiscal policy must be approached on a different basis than that which had hitherto been assumed. Although the Government's requirement for tax may be greater than was supposed a year ago, I cannot accept that there were not other ways that they could have chosen of raising similar or greater sums of tax.
  Frankly, my position and my criticism of the Government is that I cannot accept the fiscal and economic argument that they have advanced to justify the tax. If taxes had to be raised, there were other taxes that could have been chosen. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that the tax that is under-performing at the moment—and the take from which needs to be substantially increased—is income tax. Getting more people back to work and having an economy that is running more effectively than ours has been in the recent past would result in a greater income tax yield than at present.
  Environmental arguments have been advanced by Treasury Ministers and have been challenged and denied by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I agree with both of them that, if the case is to be advanced on environmental grounds, the people who will be least able to afford the environmental improvements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is trying to achieve by the imposition of the tax are those whose incomes will be most adversely affected by its imposition. Those people, whether they are recipients of the social security system or are just beyond its thresholds, will have the least spare cash to buy the double glazing or whatever is required to achieve the necessary environmental improvements.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I declare an interest as the chairman of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did not include historic buildings and heritage in his list of those who will be punished by this proposal, but there will be costs for the Government and the heritage of Scotland. The difficulties that we have in trying to stretch a strawberry a mile to try to maintain the heritage of Scotland will be increased.
  Mr. Powell: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that information, of which I was otherwise unaware.
  I challenge the extension of VAT on social and political grounds. The people who will find the imposition of the tax to be the greatest burden are those who least deserve to be punished by this Parliament and, above all else, will be those who stand just above the threshold for social security and income support. I have no doubt that, in an odd, funny sort of way, the social security system will provide some compensation—not, of course, total compensation —for the extra costs that will be incurred.
  People outside the social security system who have saved throughout their lives, as my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said, will incur an extra penalty because they have saved. Every hon. Member knows that the most angry of our constituents are always those whose incomes are just above the threshold, but I
  532
  should like to add a further point of considerable significance: those people have seen their incomes from savings come right down in the past few months.
  Lower interest rates are bad for savers. Those savers now draw substantially less investment income because the Government have pursued policies that have enabled them to bring interest rates closer to, but not quite reaching, realistic levels. As well as suffering from that fall in investment income, those people will be further penalised when the VAT charge on fuel is imposed next year and levied at double the rate in 1995. I have to speak up for those thousands and thousands of my constituents who are just above the threshold levels.
  Mr. Marlow: Would my hon. Friend's constituents react in the same way as my constituents would—I expect that they would because they are not far removed—to the point made by our right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? He is a brilliant and excellent Minister, but he was wholly beneath himself when he said that people on pensions or income support would receive an extra £1·60 a week each because pensions were rising higher than the retail prices index. He knows that their cost of living is not related to the RPI at all, as they do not have mortgages. In fact, their savings will have gone down; instead of being better off by £1·60 a week, they will be worse off. Insult has been added to injury by his remarks today.
  Mr. Powell: I am not prepared to go quite as far as my hon. Friend in his style of criticising our right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. However, I must confess that I was somewhat puzzled to hear my right hon. Friend phrase his argument in the way he did. Although it will not be enough to change my mind, I very much hope that our right hon. Friends in the Treasury will think far more deeply about the impact of the policy on those who could claim social security but do not and on those who are just above the threshold. Both those groups will have to bear the full impact, which will have a serious effect on their standard of living. It is a social policy that I am not prepared to support and that is why I cannot go along with my right hon. and hon. Friends this evening.
  Mr. Dicks: I apologise for not being present for the start of my hon. Friend's speech. I want to ask for his view on two issues. First, if economic growth is faster than the Government expect, there may be an opportunity to have a rethink before the proposal's full impact is felt. Secondly, most hon. Members would have been prepared to pay more tax to ensure that pensions were at a far more realistic level than at present and to cover this situation.
  Mr. Powell: I hope that economic growth is much faster that the Government currently predict, because I fear for the consequences otherwise. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was correct to say that once VAT was imposed, it would not be possible to think again about it. Once it is imposed, it will remain imposed. That is one of the inevitable facts of life which go with the VAT regime under the directive to which the Government are a signatory.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Powell: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to make some more progress. On second thoughts, I give way.
  Mr. Nicholls: I have tempted my hon. Friend. I shall have to ensure that that temptation comes up to the mark. I do not intend to get involved in the debate about whether one can go back on VAT rates once they have been increased—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: One cannot.
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend always says that on these occasions.
  Does my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) agree that, during the next year, there may be at least the opportunity for the Government to work out proper compensation mechanisms to ensure that those whom he identifies as being just above the income support level can be helped in some way? To that extent, matters may not be quite as hopeless as my hon. Friend understandably points out.
  Mr. Powell: I hope that my hon. Friend is right, but I fear that he is not. I fear that our present structure of social security would make it virtually impossible for the Government to be able to identify compensation for individual amounts, such as VAT on fuel and power. If they attempted to do so, they would be caught up in an administrative nightmare.
  There is a better way in which to deal with the problem which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge has outlined and which I wish that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary would be prepared to concede. The best way is to withdraw the clause altogether so that we do not face the difficulties that are implicit in it. The best thing to do would he to withdraw it and to think again. If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor still believed that he must raise taxes by £2·3 billion, he could then come forward with alternative tax-increasing proposals which did not involve that nightmare.
  5.45 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: If my hon. Friend's suggestion is not possible, could we not solve everyone's difficulties by pursuing the policy of having a British-built aeroplane flying above my hon. Friend's constituency and dropping £10 notes? That would deal with all the problems raised by my hon. Friend and would solve all the political problems. If our hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) does not want the money that way, how does he think that he will get it?
  Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is a most beguiling advocate. In the past, he has offered cash sums to the many farmers in Northamptonshire and he is now offering £10 notes. I assure him that if he came to eastern Northamptonshire, he would find himself a very popular man.
  I shall now draw together the political and social strands of the argument. All our constituencies are different. I represent few people who are wealthy and not many people who could be described as affluent. Many people who vote for me are far less well off than many of those who vote for my opponents. I do not want to betray the trust that they have shown in me over a decade and in three elections. To be candid, few people expected me to win any of the three elections, so I have a particular obligation to those who have supported me. Those on
  534
  modest incomes who have saved and those who find life a real struggle expect and deserve more of me than to support the clause.
  While people are drawing political conclusions, I shall spell out something that needs to be spelt out loudly and clearly by Conservative Members this evening. Those of us who were involved in last week's elections for the county councils know perfectly well that it was virtually impossible to get Conservative voters to go to the polls. Turnouts were extraordinarily low. People who would not dream of ever voting for the Labour party or for the Liberal Democrats registered their protest by staying at home.
  There are always many issues, but one issue had to be top of the list. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said had been discovered in the Newbury by-election, Conservative voters in Northamptonshire said again and again, "We are completely opposed to the imposition of VAT on fuel and power." That is why I say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made a considerable error of judgment in introducing the proposal in the Budget.
  I have tabled amendment No. 36, on village halls, which has been selected for debate in the group of amendments relating to VAT and charities. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) raise the subject. For several years, especially in Committees considering the Finance Bill, I have raised the question of village halls. I have been rather proud and rather pleased to try to do what I can to ensure that the village hall movement and those who work voluntarily so hard for and in village halls receive the just attention of the House.
  Some years ago, accompanied by a team from the Village Halls Forum, I visited my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who was then Minister of State, Treasury. We were concerned about VAT as it affects village halls. I had received letters from all over the country and had the enthusiastic support of a great many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We were discussing fuel in particular. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, we are talking not just about gas and electricity but about oil. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary may be right to say that gas and electricity prices are falling at present but oil prices are not.
  My right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Treasury told us that one way of mitigating the potential disaster facing village halls as a result of the imposition of VAT was for them to have oil tanks of less than 500 gallons capacity—because at the time, one only paid VAT above 500 gallons. Many would argue that that was an arbitrary cut-off point; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary argued that himself. I am prepared to concede that there are illogicalities in the British tax system, and so there should be. The fact that something is illogical does not mean that it lacks common sense or public support. Village hall representatives were given to understand that, if they had fuel tanks of less than 500 gallons, they would be able to avoid the imposition of VAT. Now that advice has turned sour on them.
  Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent rural areas with a robust village hall movement. I do, and I am proud of the developments that have been taking place throughout my constituency—the new village halls that have been appearing, and so on. I am conscious, however, of the fact that the Government have made life more difficult for the village halls in a number of ways. The food

  535
  regulations have imposed an enormous extra burden on the movement. The uniform business rate has imposed a staggering extra burden on many village halls. The 17·5 per cent. VAT rate in itself imposes a substantial burden, which the village halls have found it difficult, if not impossible, to meet. The extension of VAT to fuel and power represents one more blow. I am against it and shall oppose it. I owe my constituents more than to support the clause and I shall, with enthusiasm, vote against it.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: In his Budget statement on 16 March, the Chancellor disguised his decision to impose VAT on domestic fuel as a measure intended to encourage the efficient use of energy. He told the House that the measure would encourage greater energy efficiency in every household in the country. That strikes me as one of the more fantastic claims that the Chancellor has made, belonging with classic statements such as that about the green shoots of recovery. At least the Chancellor was more honest—and to some extent, the Chief Secretary was more honest today—when he went on to explain that the measure was also intended to raise a considerable amount of revenue for the Exchequer.
  The green claims that have been made for a tax on domestic fuel are flawed. If this is a green tax, the House should be told how the Government will judge its success in improving energy efficiency. Will it be according to the amount of fuel saved and not used or according to a decrease in pollution? The Chief Secretary told us today that he believed that the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel would save about 1·5 million tonnes of carbon emissions by the end of the decade, which would go some way towards the estimated 10 million tonne saving that will have to be made on the basis of what was agreed at the Rio convention.
  At this stage, that estimate is only an estimate. The figure could be much higher, although some estimate that it could be much lower. If that was the case for the defence in respect of the decision to place VAT on domestic fuel, it should have been spelt out more fully.
  The Energy Savings Trust—a body that has literally just been put together—is supposed to be saving some 2·5 million tonnes of carbon emissions by the end of the decade. No one can see at this stage how that can be achieved; I wait with interest to see how it will be done. A note from the Treasury to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee in April estimated that the imposition of VAT of 17·5 per cent. on domestic fuel and power would reduce domestic energy consumption by 3·5 per cent. by the end of the decade. A price elasticity of 0·2 per cent. was used. But as the domestic sector accounts for around one quarter of energy consumption, overall use would fall by just over 1 per cent. That means that the extension of VAT will fall far short of its stated aim of reducing domestic fuel consumption.
  The Chancellor will have seen the letter sent to him on 30 March by 90 voluntary organisations representing a variety of consumer interests, in which grave concern was expressed about the decision. The letter said:
  "Your proposal to compensate low income householders will bring little comfort to the seven million who live in cold, damp homes which they cannot afford to heat now, because of inadequate heating systems and poor thermal efficiency. Low income householders are beyond the reach of market forces"—
  that is presumably what the imposition of VAT is about—
  536
  "and cannot respond to your price signal except by turning off their heating and going without."
  That statement is backed up by everyone working in the field of energy in homes. People on low incomes cannot respond to market forces. Before there was any thought of imposing VAT on domestic fuel, there should have been a proper public debate. The Government should have given figures showing how they believed people on low incomes would respond.
  Opposition Members, and no doubt one or two Conservative Members, want to know what the Government propose to do to extend the scope of the home energy efficiency scheme, which is at present limited to loft insulation and draught-proofing and in respect of which payment can be claimed only by people on income support.
  Millions of people who are not on income support live in homes that are badly in need of energy efficiency measures. Nothing has been said about what will happen in that connection. Will Ministers hand over some of the £950 million that they will raise next year, the £2·3 billion that they will raise the following year and the £3 billion that they will raise the year after that as a result of the VAT measure, and increase the funding of the home energy efficiency scheme so that people in poorly insulated homes can benefit?
  In 1991, the Department of Energy stated:
  "The Government starts from the position that consumers do not need subsidy, regulation or financial incentives or penalty (through the taxation system) to get them to act to improve their energy efficiency."
  What has changed? Why must we now have VAT on domestic fuel? What evidence was produced to get the Government to change their mind? What has happened since 1991?
  The policy does not appear in the Government's discussion paper "Climate Change", published only last December. I believe that the reason why the policy does not appear in that paper is that it has nothing to do with reducing emissions of pollutants.
  All the evidence that we have received suggests that people will use less fuel so that their bills do not increase and that people on low incomes will go without adequate heating. Let me quote from the findings of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which, for many years, has done great work in social policy matters. In its "Social Policy Research Findings No. 25", published in January 1992, the foundation said that fear of debt, and the certainty that "doing without" saves money, means that low-income households limit their use of electricity by heating their homes inadequately rather than reducing their energy demand by efficiency measures.
  There is no evidence that increasing the amount that people will have to pay will send them out to improve the insulation of their homes. If the Government thought that there was an anomaly because energy efficiency improvements incurred VAT whereas fuel did not, they should have taken VAT off energy efficiency improvements so that people could make their homes more energy-efficient. Instead, the Government have imposed VAT on the fuel that people will use and on standing charges.
  The measure has nothing to do with the environment. It is clearly nothing more than a tax-raising measure. It is typical of the Conservative Government. It will hurt the unemployed and low-paid more than anyone else. The Government have tried to defend the measure by saying that it is an environmental measure. They have missed.

  537
  They tried to say that it was a fiscal measure to increase the money which goes into the Treasury because public finances are in a bad state. They have missed on that too.
  6 pm
  It must be the case that people who depend entirely or partly on state benefits will receive an average increase at some stage. Some people within that category will be losers and others will be gainers, because people have different ways of heating their homes. There must be losers and winners. If we do not defeat the measure and it is passed, I hope that regional averages will be established, so that people who live in colder climates in the United Kingdom receive more compensation than others. But even if with regional averages, there would be losers and winners.
  People will lose because the Government's policy is misplaced. It is misplaced in both environmental and fiscal terms. We should reject it tonight to save face for everyone, including the Ministers who are promoting the measure.
  Mr. Milligan: This is an unpopular measure. I know from talking to people in my constituency in the county elections that there is a great deal of resentment about it. It is easy for Opposition politicians to cash in on that resentment. To increase taxation and please is not given to many politicians. However, in government we have a duty to do not merely that which is popular but that which is right. We also have a duty to tell the truth.
  The truth is that the public sector borrowing requirement is equivalent to £1,000 for every man, woman and child in Britain. The Opposition say that they would not have allowed the PSBR to rise so high. If they had followed that policy, unemployment would have been even higher. It was right to increase the PSBR to deal with the exceptional problem of the recession.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) sometimes seems to confuse cause and effect. She said that one of the ways in which she would cut the PSBR was by cutting unemployment. I am surprised that, when she was spokesman on health, she did not suggest that she would reduce the common cold by reducing sneezing. If we are to reduce unemployment, we must have a recovery. That in turn will reduce the PSBR. She seems to have got those issues the wrong way round.
  The hon. Member for Peckham accused the Government of hypocrisy. But what could be more hypocritical than to tell people that there is no need to increase taxation, and to refuse to answer questions on what a future Labour Government would do? Every time that the hon. Lady was challenged on that matter, she refused to give an answer.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Did the hon. Gentleman give that advice to the Prime Minister before his statement on 27 March last year, just 13 days before the election, when he gave the most unequivocal statement that there would be no extension of the scope of VAT? The hon. Gentleman talks about the need to be honest. Where on earth are we, and what on earth is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
  Mr. Milligan: I would be flattered if the Prime Minister listened to my views, especially as I was not a Member of Parliament at that time. My right hon. Friend the Chief
  538
  Secretary gave the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. At that stage, there were no plans to extend the scope of VAT. But Governments have to react to events. The recession was far longer than we expected. We made additional pledges at Rio, which the Opposition strongly supported. But they do not expect us ever to have to pay the bill for the pledges that were made.
  So we have a completely dishonest Labour Front-Bench team, who give the impression that there is some easy way out of the problem, and that taxation does not have to be increased. The Opposition have never answered questions about what they would do in government or whether they would repeal the measure.
  Mr. Barron: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that, in the past five years, the top 5 per cent. of British income tax payers have received cash discounts from the Government running into billions of pounds, yet we ask people, many on low income or benefit, to pay VAT on standing charges and domestic fuel?
  Mr. Milligan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. I rang the Institute for Fiscal Studies this morning—I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is an independent body—and asked for its estimate of the overall effect on income distribution of the set of measures that were announced in the Budget. It said that, provided that means-tested benefits were increased in the way that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has made it clear they will be, the effect was "broadly proportional". It is not a regressive set of measures.
  Mr. Barron rose—
  Mr. Milligan: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question.
  If one takes it in isolation, the imposition of VAT on fuel is regressive, but one must look at the balance of measures that were announced.
  When we have a PSBR worth £1,000 for every man, woman and child, everyone in the country has to make a contribution to putting it right. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said that it was unfair that the charge would fall on people with modest incomes. I agree with him, but the problem is that most people in Britain are on modest incomes. If we are to balance the books, everyone has to make a contribution. It is important that those measures are seen to be fair, and are fairly distributed. The balance of measures announced in the Budget is fair.
  The Liberal Democrats have a different approach from the Labour party. They accept that there should be taxation on energy. They support a carbon tax, but they have an original approach. They would compensate everyone for the extra taxation. That would do nothing about the PSBR and nothing to discourage excessive energy use. That is the second purpose of the measure. It is intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
  The economic knowledge of the hon. Member for Peckham appeared to be rather limited. She appeared to have even less scientific knowledge when she suggested that the measure was intended to deal with the hole in the ozone layer. It has nothing to do with the hole in the ozone layer. It is to reduce global warming. At Rio, we gave a promise to reduce carbon output by the equivalent of 10 million tonnes to deal with global warming.

  539
  The Opposition and the Liberal party are enthusiastic about environmental measures, but as soon as it comes to paying the bill for them, they say that no bills should be imposed and no one should have to pay extra. We need to reduce excessive energy consumption. The House of Commons, in which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has some role, might set a lead by reducing its excessive central heating. If we are to reduce excessive fuel consumption, we must take action.
  It is significant that the hon. Member for Peckham, who was wearing a fetching green outfit, paid little attention to the green aspects of the measure. I wish to quote what Friends of the Earth, which is widely accepted as an independent environmental group, has had to say about the measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced. It issued a press release entitled "Budget Briefing … Why Friends of the Earth welcomes the Chancellor's energy price hikes." It says:
  "Friends of the Earth therefore welcomes the Chancellor's commitment to increasing domestic fuel and power prices over the next two years through the gradual imposition of VAT."
  So this is a difficult and unpopular measure, but I believe that it is a correct one.
  I welcome the newly elected hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) to the House. I know that he had a good education at a good Oxford college, but he seems to have gone politically astray since then. I hope that he enjoys his brief stay in the House. But those who win by-elections should remember that those who win general elections are those who have the honesty to tell the truth to the electorate, to do what is right and not to seek short-term popularity. For that reason I shall support the Government tonight.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), one thing has become clear over time. It was even acknowledged by the Chief Secretary in his speech today. This is not a green measure and it was never intended as such. It is a revenue-raising measure. Another thing which is clear and which the Government have tried to disguise is that, of all the promises that were broken in what was probably the most dishonest election campaign in recent times, the broken promise on VAT on fuel was the most appalling breach of faith.
  On 27 March, 13 days before the election, the Prime Minister gave an unequivocal promise to the nation that he had no intention or need to raise the level or scope of VAT. In his Budget Speech, the Chancellor gave the same commitment. Remember, we are not talking about a small measure. This is not an additional small sum added on the side to balance the books. It is the Government's biggest single revenue-raising proposal this year. It represents the biggest detraction from every commitment that the Conservatives gave before the last election. About £2·3 billion will be raised by the extension of VAT to domestic fuel. It is a scandal.
  The need to extend VAT to domestic fuel did not creep up on the Government. After all, the Conservatives have been in charge of the nation's monetary policy for nearly 14 years. Before the general election, they announced what they alleged were the Labour party's proposals and told the people what their tax proposals were. They deliberately lied and deceived people about that.
  Mr. Dicks: Without wishing to defend the amendment, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government had to change course because of changed circumstances. The leader of the Labour party, when asked recently why he was opposed to tax increases and was in favour of tax reductions, replied that circumstances had changed in the last year. If it is good enough for that right hon. and learned Gentleman to change his mind because of changed circumstances, why is not it good enough for the Government?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I do not believe that circumstances have changed to such a degree that the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel is warranted. In any event, if circumstances have changed, the Government have been responsible for those changes. They decided to push the pound into the ERM and they then spectacularly withdrew it in September.
  As the Conservatives had complete control of the economy in the last year, they should have known—I believe that they did know—about the impending imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. As I say, they deliberately lied about it and pushed it to the other side of the election campaign. The result is that, in the most cynical way, they are retreating from the clear commitments that they gave before the election.
  Not only is the VAT imposition massive, but, as hon. Members have pointed out, it will be permanent. The Chief Secretary said that perhaps we would learn by experience. That cannot happen with the VAT proposal. Under EC regulations, once we have given up the right to zero-rate fuel, it will be given up for ever. Once approved, that will be the end of it, which is why I welcome the commitment of some Conservative Members to vote against the VAT proposal.
  It has been suggested that the VAT imposition is not regressive. In fact, it is among the most regressive of taxes being introduced this year. Figures show that the poorest decile of the population spend 13 per cent. of their income on fuel. The imposition of VAT will result in an extra 3 per cent. of their disposable income being removed from them. That will come on top of the problems they face as a result of our present appallingly regressive tax system.
  In the 14 years during which the Conservatives have been in office, the tax burden on the poor has increased from 40 per cent. To—including the measures in this Finance Bill—50 per cent. In other words, the poorest people in Britain will be paying 50 per cent. of their income in taxes in one form or another.
  Government policy to move the tax burden from direct to indirect taxation is designed to hide the sort of sins that they are committing in the Finance Bill. Who on earth would accept an income tax regime that meant the poorest paying more than the richest? Such a policy would be clearly unfair and unacceptable. Yet the present basket of taxation proposed by the Government will mean the poor paying massively more than the rich. The top decile in the nation pay a third of their income in tax while the poorest pay half. That represents an appalling state of affairs.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend will agree that it is not surprising that many members of the public are beginning to compare the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel with the poll tax. In this case, the poorest will be hit the hardest, as happened with the poll tax. No wonder the public are

  541
  linking the two in their minds. I hope that the Tory party will deeply regret, in electoral terms, what they are doing in punishing those who are in the greatest need of help.
  Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, although the analogy is even closer. The Chief Secretary said, in justifying the change, that people would be able to cope with the increases because of changes in the rebate system with the introduction of the council tax regime. Under the poll tax regime, the lowest earners had to pay at least 20 per cent. A great deal of fighting took place before the Government finally accepted that 100 per cent. allowances were necessary under the council tax system. The Chief Secretary is discounting that in the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel.
  I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, in attempting to justify the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel and the offsetting arrangements, "The measures that we have taken are so numerous and large that I do not think that hon. Members appreciate everything that we have done for these people." I assure him that among "these people" he claims to be helping, the pensioners and those living on income support will not appreciate his efforts. I do not know what sort of world the right hon. Gentleman is living in. It is not the same world as that inhabited by my constituents.
  In endeavouring to secure better offset arrangements from the Government, some Conservative Members have asked for the social security system to be carefully examined. I remind them that the review of Departments, including the DSS, announced by the Treasury some months ago, was not designed to extend aid to cover the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. That review is designed to save millions of pounds to help close the massive gap in our public finances. Anybody who believes that the Conservatives are sincere in wishing to offset the effects of the new charge through the social security system are deluding themselves.
  The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) talked about the anger that the people who had voted for him felt about the imposition of VAT and how he could not possibly support it as a result. My constituents do not feel similar anger because, unlike that hon. Member's constituents, few of them voted for the Government. My constituents knew, when the election result came in, the sort of thing that would happen. They were not stupid about it and therefore they are not angry because they knew jolly well what was going to happen.
  Their anger is directed at the people who were stupid enough to vote the Conservative party into power for a fourth term. The anger will be felt by the people who feel betrayed, by the people who were conned, by the people who believed what they were told by the Tory party before the election. The anger felt by the people who did not vote for the Conservatives is directed towards those who did.
  Mr. Marlow: As a result of ERM membership and being in the ERM much longer than we should have been, which imposed economic policies on the United Kingdom that may or may not have been appropriate for the German Federal Republic, this country has found itself, having already had a recession, in a much worse recession, which has gone on much longer than it should have done
  542
  and caused much more damage to many of our constituents' hopes and aspirations and also a great deal of damage to the Government's finances than it should have done. As supporters of the Government, we all understand the predicament in which they find themselves.
  When we came out of the ERM on white Wednesday, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was caught singing in the bath. Apparently, that is a drowning offence. If I can use another metaphor, when the scrum is being pushed backwards at ever-increasing speed, one does not sack the hooker but one looks to the leader of the pack to redouble his efforts. When we look at the measures before us today, and when we look at what happened to the Government in the local elections and at Newbury last week, we must be frank, direct and straightforward with the people. When we look at this particular matter, we have to be a little more honest than we have so far been.
  I support VAT on domestic fuel and power, because, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor put it to the House in his Budget speech on 16 March, it was done
  "in order to meet the commitment that we entered into at Rio."
  That was a proper commitment to enter into and it is quite proper that we should seek to meet it. We need the right incentives to encourage people to consume less energy and conserve more energy. That is what VAT on domestic fuel and power will do, right and proper.
  My right hon. Friend also said:
  "Against this background, I have one further measure to propose that will not only encourage greater energy efficiency in every household … but will also raise money for the Exchequer."
  We need to raise money for the Exchequer—I agree with That—and that is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor wished to introduce VAT on fuel and power. That decision is green, it is good, it is correct, it is right, but, "It's not what you do, but how you do it".
  We must take two problems into account—
  Mr. Beith: Yes, Lamont and Major. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Marlow: In a very good speech, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury addressed those problems, but he did not go far enough. Some silly points have been made during the debate, including those made, if I may say so, by some of my hon. Friends who quoted from 1976. There will be people voting in the next general election who were not even conceived in 1976. Let us get on with today's agenda and not concentrate on some of the silly things that happened years ago.
  Before the Opposition are too agreeable to my speech, I must draw attention to the fact that, time and time again, they refer to the fact that the Government make promises and break promises, and so on and so forth. All the time the Opposition say to Ministers, "Deny you are going to do that; say you won't do that with VAT; Say you won't do this or that." Every time the stock answer comes now, as it came 10, 20, 30 and 40 years ago, "We have no plans to do anything about it." That is what the Government said at the general election and at that time it was right, honest and correct to say that.
  But circumstances have changed. If the Opposition, heaven forfend, become the Government of this country, circumstances will change when they are in power, and they will say, "We have no plans." That is the stock way of doing it, the proper way of doing it, it is the way that it will continue to be done in the future. Let us not deceive

  543
  the people by saying that the Government were deceiving the electorate at the election, because they were not. What they said then was a perfectly proper thing to say. Let us have that on record and let us have it correct.
  When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the imposition of VAT on fuel, he said:
  "Social security benefits, will, of course, rise … but I recognise that this will cause particular problems for those on low incomes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will take this into account when the income-related benefits are uprated next year."—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 183.]
  It is right that we should look after the poorer people.
  We should discourage people from using too much energy and encourage them to become energy-efficient. Such energy efficiency measures should also apply to those who are less well off, but we must take into account that they will be subject to an increased financial commitment. I understand that we will offer help to those on income support—in some cases, those who are the most unfortunate and, in others, those who have least helped themselves. We will look after them.
  After the election, I made a short speech in which I expressed my concern for those pensioners with a little bit of savings, who are just above the income support level. Every time the Government introduce a new tax, which they must do and which I support, those on income support are looked after, but those who have looked after themselves are ignored. Time and time again, that group of people who have saved, strived, who fought in the war and who have done their best for the country, their families and themselves are ignored and put on one side. This VAT increase is one time too many. What Ministers have said so far about their plight has not met that problem.
  Those pensioners are forgotten every time, but their time has now come. The Conservative Government must not cast them on one side. They must take into account the commitment of those people and what they have done for the country. We must support them. All right, the Government can raise the tax, but they must remember those who have marginal savings and marginal additional pensions, which place them just above the level eligible for income support. This time we must consider them when we introduce compensation later in the year.
  I agree that we should tax consumption and encourage people to be effective and efficient in their use of energy. We should encourage people to look after their houses so that they do not waste energy. It is a good thing to make everyone conscious of the fact that the Government are green and that we have green policies. But why are we imposing VAT on the standing charge? That charge, which covers the cost of getting gas or electricity to the ironmongery in the street, is for providing an essential service. It is not to do with use, but with providing a facility.
  Just as we provide water without taxation, food without taxation and sewage disposal without taxation, we should not tax the standing charge,—although we 'will not raise as much money in taxation. I and many Conservative Members want the Government to look after the people who have saved and looked after themselves. We do not want the Government to ignore them. The Government should not tax the standing charge, as it is an essential service.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Vanquished Tory candidates in last Thursday's elections said:
  "We've been crucified by our own Government".
  The Prime Minister said last Friday—as we saw on our television screens—that the electorate had given him a "bloody nose". But even some of his party's surviving representatives have continued to throw punches at him since then.
  Speaking to the Sunday Times last Saturday, an Essex Tory councillor said:
  "We went into the General Election telling people not to vote Labour because they would put up taxes, and what happens? The Government put up VAT. We need a leadership that does what it says it will do and we need it badly."
  No close observer of last Thursday's shire elections and the Newbury by-election on the same day is in any doubt that the Government's decision to impose VAT on domestic fuel was a hugely important factor in the massive loss of Tory seats.
  The morning after the party's humiliating rejection by the electorate, the Prime Minister said that the lessons of the disaster would be quickly learned. The truth of that will be tested at the conclusion of today's debate. If the Government persist in the clear breach of their undertaking at the general election, they will demonstrably not have learnt even the first lesson of the rout inflicted on them last Thursday.
  The imposition of VAT on gas and electricity bills is bitterly resented by people who feel cheated by the blatant falsehood that they were told at the general election. Every household will have to pay more but, as all of us know, the elderly poor will be hit much harder than others. If they are not compensated in full—which the Government still refuse to concede—their plight will be of even greater concern to everyone who knows the facts about deprivation among the elderly poor in Britain today.
  Only one quarter of pensioners pay income tax, but every pensioner pays VAT. That is why the poorest pensioners dread the extension of the tax to gas and electricity. Few people knew on Budget day that VAT on thier domestic fuel bills would apply, not only to the gas and electricity they use, but to the standing charges imposed on them by the privatised companies. The poorest pensioners pay more in standing charges than they do for the gas and electricity they use. For them now to have to pay a further 8 per cent., and then 17·5 per cent., in standing charges, is a scandal that I hope the Committee will refuse to sanction tonight.
  The Government have attempted no justification of the imposition of VAT on standing charges. There is no way in which such a levy has any environmental justification. It is unrelated to actual consumption and is a gratuitous extra cost imposed on the consumer. The only way she or he can avoid VAT on standing charge is not to use gas or electricity at all, yet, in a recent parliamentary reply, the Paymaster General—who has now joined us—told me that, within two years, the Treasury expected to raise £100 million from pensioners in VAT on standing charges alone. That is surely intolerable from every viewpoint. Will the Chancellor at least accept today that VAT must not be levied on the standing charges to which pensioners are subjected?
  The anxieties of pensioners about VAT on fuel bills are shared by severely disabled people, who have to spend

  545
  more than most people on heating their homes. They need to do so for health reasons. We must strive to protect them, too, from the effects of the Government's broken promise. In their case, VAT on domestic fuel is a straight tax on disability. Not only disabled people themselves, but many doctors, have told me of the dangers their patients will face if they are forced to economise on heating.
  If the Chancellor is hellbent on persisting with his proposals, we should be told in the debate exactly how and to what extent the Government intend to compensate the elderly poor and severely disabled people for its effects. To leave them waiting and worrying until the autumn is widely condemned as studiedly cruel by their organisations. The Disability Alliance, which speaks for more than 200 organisations of and for disabled people, says:
  "We fear that the imposition of VAT on fuel and Standing Charges will have a devastating effect on disabled people. If the proposal goes ahead, we urge you to press for an adequate period of consultation with organisations and groups representing low-income households to ensure that proper compensation is made."
  Such consultation should have taken place before the Chancellor made his decision to extend VAT to fuel bills. He should also have discussed the issue in advance of any decision with the Charities Tax Reform Group. The cost to its member organisations if we fail to defeat the proposal will be £25 million a year, within two years, which will add significantly to the already large irrecoverable VAT burden borne by charities.
  All that money was given by the public, not for the Billy Bunters of the Treasury, but to help children in need, cancer patients, ex-service men and women and their dependants, for whom the Royal British Legion works so hard, severely disabled people, the frail elderly and others. If the Government refuse to change their mind, it will mean that such groups and other needful people will soon lose another £25 million to the Chancellor, which will add anger to the anguish of those striving to help them at a time of Treasury-driven cuts in the provision of services by the public sector.
  In a powerful letter in The Times today, Ian Bruce, the director general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, and others said:
  "The real and agonising choice for charities will be in deciding which projects they will be unable to fund, which improvements they will need to delay, which deserving cases they will be unable to help. Charities are constantly improving their fund-raising efforts but—as with the environment—resources are not infinite. We cannot believe that this is what the government intended when it decided to impose VAT on fuel and power."
  The letter was also signed by senior representatives of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Mencap, the Wellcombe Trust, Help the Aged and the National Children's Home.
  They will know, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House know, that the effect of the Government's proposal could be to drive some charities out of existence. The signatories of the letter to The Times will have been encouraged by the highly principled speech made earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). Let us hope that other Conservative Members will join him in assisting us to defeat this perverse proposal in the Division Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Nicholls: I shall first deal with the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe
  546
  (Mr. Morris) and also alluded to, in a whisper, by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—the accusation that the Government have broken their promise by introducing VAT now. I accept at once that that issue does not go to the heart of the argument, but it is worth stating.
  The allegation that the Government have broken their promise because they must have had plans at the time of the general election is inconceivable. The idea that the Government could ensure that such plans were not leaked within a week of their conception is nonsense. It is perfectly obvious that, had any such plans been afoot, there is no way that they could have remained hidden from the light of day for an entire year. We can be absolutely certain that there were no such plans, because the Government have given their word and because of the sheer practicalities.
  Interestingly, and perhaps even engagingly, there has been some banter across the Chamber about election addresses. We have been asked what was in our election addresses, and we have made some inquiries about matters which were not in past Labour election addresses, and not a great deal of light was shed.
  In my own election address, and in every election speech I have made in the three elections in which I have stood for Parliament, I have always made the point that the overriding responsibility of any Conservative Government is to run a proper fiscal policy. That entails ensuring that, when the state taxes and spends money, the gap between what is raised and what is spent, which has to be financed by borrowing, does not become so great that it represents a burden that the country cannot afford.
  In those halcyon days not so long ago, we achieved a positive budget, in which the books balanced, and what a wonderful thing that was. We have done it before, and there is no reason why we should not do it again, but we cannot say simply that we will never increase taxes, any more than we can say that the correct rate of tax, be it the higher rate or the basic rate, should be 35 per cent. or 40 per cent. or whatever.
  We have a responsibility to the country and the people in it to make sure that the gap never becomes unbridgeable. In good times, that can be achieved with lower tax rates; in bad times, we may have to increase tax rates, but the idea that we would serve the frail, the poor and the elderly by allowing the country's finances to get so far out of control that borrowing represented a burden that the country could not sustain is cruel and dangerous nonsense.
  The mere fact that, at the last election, we said that we had no plans to increase tax yet we have now had to do so, is not a broken promise. It was adhering to a promise that, whatever else happens, we have to ensure that the gap between what we spend and what we raise never becomes thoroughly unbridgeable.
  My second point was raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who, in anticipation of my kind remarks about him, has now returned to the Chamber. He said in his usual beguiling way that the Government should look at what happened in Newbury last Thursday and announce a complete change. He floated the idea that a Treasury Minister could or should walk in here and say, "We have not had a great deal of time to think about it, but guess what? Just because a temporary Member has been elected for Newbury, we had better change the whole thing." The right hon. Gentleman

  547
  put that in his usual beguiling way, but the trouble with the right hon. Gentleman, beguiling though he is, is that he always combines his suggestions with barefaced brazen cheek.
  In any of their policy documents, manifestos or utterances, at any green Liberal conference where the brethren turn up drinking lentil soup and wearing kaftans and sandals—and the women are no better—at any of those conferences which the right hon. Gentleman has mounted over the years, the Liberals have been a thoroughly anti-energy party.
  They have talked about tax increases on energy, yet when the Government, rightly or wrongly, decided, perhaps unwisely, to use one of those Liberal policies, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have said that they did not really mean it—it was a consultation document, just a manifesto document or another little joke. The idea that the right hon. Gentleman's views are worthy of any credence strikes me as complete nonsense.
  6.45 pm
  In an ideal world, it would be nice to respond to the messages that the electorate are giving us so directly by rewriting a Budget speech at this stage of the Finance Bill. It is a lovely idea, but it is completely unrealistic.
  It is also the answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), which was one of the better speeches I have heard recently in the House. However one might feel about the anlysis, it was a speech of great sincerity. My hon. Friend took the view that, because it was a mistake to raise revenue by imposing a tax on energy, the Government should announce tonight that they would do it in some other way.
  The trouble is that one cannot simply unpick a Budget package. I always find it interesting that millions of lobby organisations write to Members of Parliament before a Budget asking us to promise that, if a particular measure is introduced, such as VAT on children's clothing or anything else, if all else fails, we will vote against it. It is very rare that one can do that with a Budget measure.
  A Budget is an overall setpiece: it stands or falls on whether it works as a package. The idea that Conservative Back Benchers, no matter how profoundly upset they are about the effect of the tax is having on a great many of their supporters, can tear it up and make progress in that way is not for a moment realistic.
  Having said that, we need to face up to the effect which the measure has had on a great many of our supporters. I come from an area similar to that mentioned by ray hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), with a relatively large elderly population. Those people have served the country well and made a contribution in at least one world war, and sometimes two.
  For the most part they have worked hard all their working lives. When they look at what they have amassed through that working life, they see a store of riches which is just above the income support level. In bad years, they feel that the product of their hard work, thrift and patriotism is that they have managed to exclude themselves from any of the free handouts that their less worthy and less thrifty neighbours receive.
  In the 20th century, one cannot run a social security policy for the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. We cannot carry out a thrift audit on people, and say that, because they have not performed very well over the past
  548
  40 years, they had better starve. However, we have to address the effect on those who have been thrifty yet are just excluded from any help.
  Those of us who are concerned about the effect of the measure on those people cannot pretend that we can unpick the Budget here and now, but we have to put down a marker and tell Ministers that the good intentions they have expressed in somewhat general terms to date about how they will help those people have to be built on.
  The message from the west country in local government elections is that people are concerned about three things: Maastricht, water charges and VAT on energy. They are pre-eminently concerned about the last for one important reason. Imagine what it must be like in the twilight of one's years seeing one's income being cut, looking at the resources that one has saved and having to consider that the money may run out before one's life does. That is why people have been writing to us and telephoning us in the terms they have, and that is why they have been staying home in droves during the elections.
  It was not meanness or their inability to say that Rio was a good idea and we should go along with it; it had nothing to do with that. It involved a word that politicians sometimes overuse—terror. It was people's terror that their money might run out, and we have to address that.
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary appeared to take on board my point about protecting the neediest is not automatically the same as protecting those on income support. I have to tell him and my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General who is to reply to the debate that that is encouraging as a skeletal point, but it needs more flesh on its bones. We cannot simply say that those who are getting relief through the council tax have in a sense been compensated. That is not sufficient.
  I accept that trying to identify the people who fall into the category that I described a few moments ago is no easy task, but I take a minimalist view of what a Back Bencher can do, and in the same way as I do not expect to be able to rewrite the Budget tonight, I do not expect to be able to provide the detail of the solution that my right hon. Friend will need. That is why he has such an impressive range of talent among his civil servants. Ultimately, once we have given them the political direction, it is up to them to come up with a formula that will deal with the problem.
  There are ways in which this can be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned one approach—clawing back the money by way of income tax from the better-off pensioners. Incidentally, I am sorry that I was slightly acerbic to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—he seems to be receiving what I am saying now quite well—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Not at all.
  Mr. Nicholls: I am pleased to have been able to bounce my hon. Friend around in the way he so richly deserves. He always manages to introduce a sour, partisan, partial European dimension to debates as important as this one. Be that as it may, if agreeing tonight to remove zero rating means that we cannot go back on that at some point in the future, I will be surprised—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Why?
  Mr. Nicholls: Largely because my working rule is that it is always a good idea to consider the opposite of

  549
  whatever my hon. Friend says—that way, one comes close to common sense. But if, by some strange exception to that rule, what my hon. Friend says has a grain of accuracy, then perhaps we need to examine what rate of VAT is applicable.
  Perhaps we should not go for 8 per cent. next year and 17·5 per cent. thereafter. Perhaps, if all the indicators are right and we are coming out of recession more quickly than we may have thought, and people will go back to work and generate tax revenue instead of using it up, the gap that needs to be bridged will be able to be bridged with a lower rate of VAT. Perhaps nothing more than 8 per cent. is needed. Moreover, the energy producers will be trying to reduce their costs to ensure that the savings that people make do not deprive them of revenue. This constitutes another approach.
  If I have correctly identified the segment of the population that needs help, I have done my duty by my constituents. It is now up to Treasury Ministers to work out where we go from here. One way or another, they must deal with that point.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: No doubt my hon. Friend's constituents will have noticed the amendment that calls for implementation of only the first stage of the VAT increase, and will watch his comments with interest. As my hon. Friend has said that the poor will not pay anyway, and as he wants better-off pensioners not to pay, who does he think should pay—bearing in mind the fact that the Government have explained that they desperately need the money?
  Mr. Nicholls: I apologise. I thought that I had made that clear. My point was that protecting the neediest by concentrating help exclusively on those with income support does not meet the problem. I said also that many who will feel this most grievously are those just above the income support line.
  It should not be beyond the resources of Government to identify that segment of the population and then concentrate help on them, too. There will obviously be hard cases. Some people will say that they are part of the working population and that they have no more means than the pensioners next door. Any form of targeted relief is by its very nature a blunt instrument; but those in the working population always have the possibility of work benefits and of a better job in the end—they have the possibility of hope. Many of the people to whom I have referred see no hope at all.
  As a humble country lawyer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."]—all right, as a country lawyer, I do not pretend to have the expertise possessed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East who claims that all we have to do is vote for one of the amendments. We can then go away saying that we have sorted out the problem. It is impossible to rewrite Budgets like that, but it is possible to respond to the fears, miseries and distresses of constituents. The Government have already acknowledged that income support in itself is not a sufficient mechanism; now they will have to do something about it.
  Fortunately for the Government and for those, like me, who will support them in the Lobbies tonight, there is still time to get the mechanism right—but the work can start now.
  Mrs. Ewing: The truth is that the only way to respond on behalf of our constituents is to ensure not only that the amendments are carried out but that the clause is defeated and does not stand part of the Bill. The Government never seem to have any difficulty introducing new measures when they choose to. If they are desperate for money, I am sure that they will easily find ways of implementing the alternative ideas.
  It will not surprise the Committee to learn that I want to speak about the clause in the context of Scotland and in the context of my own record on the issue of fuel poverty and the deprivation suffered by many pensioners, people on low incomes and unemployed people.
  As far back as the early 1970s, I started asking the Government questions about cold-related deaths in Scotland. At the time, it was not fashionable to ask such questions. It was generally reckoned that the only cold-associated deaths were those from hypothermia, usually due to accidents happening to people out walking or climbing. Since then, however, there has been a gradual recognition of the impact of cold on people's health and welfare.
  My party has introduced no fewer than six Bills to try to implement an automatic cold-climate allowance for the winter months. So we have an honourable position in the argument for improvements for those who suffer from fuel poverty.
  In the weeks and months before a Budget, we try to guess what the Chancellor, in purdah as he is, is up to. The great surprise this time was his imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. We did not anticipate that in our wildest dreams. Nor did many outside organisations. Most of the lobbying that we experienced was on behalf of organisations concerned about VAT on books, magazines, newspapers or children's clothes. I do not remember receiving any pre-Budget lobbying in connection with the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel.
  We have all inevitably received since then many representations from organisations representing the elderly, the disabled and those on low incomes. We have also received many letters from constituents. My constituency is probably the most northerly of any represented in the Committee this evening, and I have had more letters on this subject than on any other in relation to the Budget.
  There was a time earlier this afternoon, while I was repeatedly trying to intervene on the Chief Secretary, when I felt as if I must have had a bandage around my head: I seemed to be the invisible woman to him. He read out a great litany of what he believed were social security changes that had assisted people with fuel charges. He then told us to wait and see what the Government would produce, because it would only improve matters.
  7 pm
  I have a simple question for the Treasury: on what analysis do Ministers base their optimism that the imposition of VAT and the changes in the social security system will protect those most at risk from the changes? The campaign for cold credit allowances in Scotland analysed the 1987 changes to supplementary benefit, which the Chief Secretary claimed had helped these people.
  He said that the funding had been directed to those most in need. However, as a result of these supplementary benefit changes and because the additional heating allowances were removed, it is estimated—these are figures

  551
  produced by the campaign for cold credit allowances—that between 1988 and 1991 there was an increase of 7·5 per cent. in excess winter deaths in Scotland.
  I should like the Chief Secretary and his colleagues to go away and look at those statistics and tell me how they can justify the additional cost on standing charges and on fuel bills. The theory of targeting has not worked. The Government's theory of raising funds in this way will put life at risk. It is as simple and brutal as that, and the Chief Secretary must accept it.
  I speak very much from a Scottish dimension. We are the only oil-exporting country in Europe. We have our own natural gas. We have resources of high calorific value coal. We have an established hydroelectric industry. We have the best wind and wave potential sites in Europe. Yet we have that increase in deaths in Scotland.
  The Chief Secretary also referred to the comparison with Scandinavian countries. He was happy to draw the comparison on the taxation side, but he did not point out that in January, potentially the coldest month in the year, excess death rates go up in Germany by 4 per cent., in Scandinavia by 7 per cent., and in Scotland by 16 per cent. That is an appalling record. It is no wonder that pensioner organisations in Scotland are so angry that they are wondering whether the Government care about them at all.
  I shared a platform organised by the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Glasgow some few weeks ago, where Marion Robertson, speaking on behalf of the Elderly Forum—a woman representing the thousands of pensioners who have contributed so much to our society and our present welfare system—said that she had been brought up to believe that the campaign for a welfare state really meant care from the cradle to the grave. She added that she believed that for this Government pensioners do not go to their graves fast enough.
  If the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel goes ahead, there will be pensioners pushed to their graves faster than ever before, because of the climatic conditions that we suffer.
  We hear that there are to be changes in the system. Let us look at some of the changes in the welfare system dealing with the issue of heating that have occurred over the past few years under this Government.
  Severe weather payments were essentially forgotten about until it started to snow in London some two years ago. People got excited about them and the Prime Minister came in and contradicted every second day what his Minister for Social Security was saying in terms of triggering severe weather payments. Small adjustments were made as a result of that. It did not have to be below a certain temperature from Monday to Sunday; it could be any seven consecutive days. It was said that that would be a lot better.
  Then the system of measurement was to be changed.
  Mr. Winnick: Is the hon. Lady aware that, with regard to cold weather payments, the information that I received from the Library during March, when the cold weather was coming to an end, was that only one out of the 61 weather stations was triggered, so that the cold weather payments could be made? And, of course, as the hon. Lady will know, there were times in February when it was very cold indeed, but it did not reach freezing for the seven consecutive days before the trigger mechanism is used.
  Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, because there have to be these seven consecutive days, whereas for many people two consecutive days of severe cold can be enough to reduce their welfare to the point where they may have to be hospitalised.
  The stations that are used often bear no relation to the geographical areas. For example, in Keith, in my constituency, during one of these periods, no one received a severe weather payment, but 10 miles along the road, in Huntly, cold weather payments were made, because it was based on a postal code system, and the postal code in my constituency was different from that of the Gordon constituency.
  Since the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is here, he may be interested to know that in the Borders, for example, there seems to be an even more difficult position. In the eastern Borders, for instance, in 1991–92, more than 2,000 needy families were denied cold weather payments because they were connected to Boulmer weather station, location 60 miles south of the border. But sub-zero readings from the Eskdalemuir station, which is just along the road, allowed residents in the western Borders to receive payments on four occasions. The whole of Berwickshire district, Kelso and Earlston received no money, because temperatures at the Boulmer station did not trigger the mechanism.
  The reality is that the severe weather payments system has no clout in dealing with the problem. Nor does it take account of the differences in climate. It takes 50 per cent. more to heat a house in Aberdeen, or in my constituency, than it does to heat a house in Bristol. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here, he might be interested to know that in his home islands of the Shetlands it takes 60 per cent. more.
  We have a United Kingdom which may seem to be a small country, but, in terms of latitude is not. It is almost as far from Shetland to Southampton as it is from Southampton to Madrid, and no one would deny that there is a climatic difference between the latter two. One does not need to watch "Eldorado" to be aware of that difference in climate.
  Our contention is that whatever changes are made by the Government in terms of social security, they must take account of the climatic differences within the country. That is what the Bills that we in the Scottish National party have introduced have been about. We have taken account of the various climatic changes, but we want this to be done in addition to severe weather payments. Such allowances should be paid automatically during the 17 weeks of the winter months, between December and March, so that those on low incomes, pensioners, those who are afraid to switch on the fire or turn on the gas, need not fear to do so, because they know that they will have that safety net provided automatically.
  Before the Budget statement, a great deal of briefing went on behind the scenes on this issue. One of the insults that were added to the injury done to those in Scotland who are concerned with this issue was that apparently—this is recorded in the Scottish press—
  "a Downing Street press officer, when questioned about the fuel rises, jokingly asked if it was any colder in Scotland. He cited benefits that Scotland had received from the budget such as the decision not to raise the duty on whisky and the North Sea measures."
  The result was that he jokingly advised the Scots who felt the cold to take a dram. That is a real insult added to

  553
  injury. I hope that we can have a total denial that that is the attitude. Marie Antoinette went down in history as saying:"Let them eat cake." We may well have a Downing street statement recorded in history as "Let the cold and the needy drink whisky." I certainly could not endorse that.
  The key is to stop this whole idea progressing. I welcome the fact that we have seen some honesty and decency on the Conservative Benches, where hon. Members have spoken with vehemence and passion about the fact that they will rebel tonight in the Lobbies. But I reiterate that if we are unsuccessful in defeating the Government tonight, we need more than tinkering with the social security system. There must be that automatic allowance.
  That view was endorsed by Professor Malcolm Johnson, director of the department of health and social welfare at the Open university, in January 1991. He said:
  "There ought to be extra help available automatically in the winter months for all of those at risk.
  In mild winters, like the last four years, the Goverment might argue that would risk wasting public funds. In my view, that is better than risking people's lives."
  I endorse that view.
  Finally, the Government claim that the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel will fulfil the Rio agreement and encourage energy conservation. Far too many people have been conserving energy for far too long at the expense of their health. All of us as Members of Parliament see in our constituencies young families suffering from bronchitis and asthmatic conditions, and the dampness in their houses. Part of the reason for that is that they have conserved energy because they are on low incomes. We see the same impact on the elderly and disabled, whose plight has been eloquently described.
  Conservation of energy can come in many ways. My suggestion to the Government is an all-out programme on conserving energy. We could renovate our houses, ensure adequate insulation and ensure that houses were brought up to the highest standards. That would both give people decent homes and reduce the dole queues. As has been said, one of the reasons why the Exchequer does not receive much from income tax is that so many people are on the dole. Let us use the talents and skills that exist to start a programme of energy conservation by improving our housing stock.
  The Government have taken a mean-spirited approach that is short-sighted and ham-fisted, and is designed not to improve conservation but to line the Exchequer's coffers. It does so at the risk of increasing the number of deaths from hypothermia—deaths to which, in 1991, Scotland contributed one sixth of the United Kingdom total.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: In this rather disappointing and gloomy debate, the one joy for me was the speech made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He spoke of the situation with great honesty and integrity, not hiding anything, telling us some rather alarming financial statistics that have never before been revealed. If we are looking for what some people have asked for—the answer to Newbury—it must lie, as we can see from the Chief Secretary's speech, in telling the truth. I must emphasise that in Southend, East we do not have a Newbury problem. I am glad to tell the Committee that every
  554
  Conservative seat was held with a good majority, there were no losses to Labour and the Liberal vote hardly existed. However, that is not the relevant factor.
  The relevant factor is what on earth we do. Although we fully appreciate that to put VAT on gas, electricity and other fuels will undoubtedly cause hardship, distress and misery and might cause special problems in the north of Scotland where, without doubt, people suffer more from cold weather over a continuous period, colleagues must ask themselves what they would do. The Chief Secretary explained that Britain's debts were getting out of control. That is probably the wrong phrase to use, because the Treasury never admits that anything is out of control. However, it accepts that, after a period under the previous Prime Minister when we were paying back debt, we now have a horrible situation in which we are borrowing more than £1,000 million a week and it is difficult to carry on with that.
  More frightening was the Chief Secretary's explanation that that was not likely to be a temporary problem and that by 1996 we would still have horrendous problems in raising funds simply to make ends meet. We are all aware —there is no point in hiding it—that taxation as a whole, as a share of our gross national income, has been rising consistently, as it has been in most other countries. As the burdens of the welfare system increase, as the Government engage in more and more daft spending schemes, the amount of money that we have to spend increases. Here again, we must ask colleagues what on earth they would do in that situation.
  It was also splendid of the Chief Secretary to accept that not only is the situation serious, it is getting worse. There is a perfect example of that in tonight's Evening Standard, which always has jewels of wisdom about spending. It has an article about this wonderful thing called the Eurojet, which is a remarkable attempt by four European countries to build a plane in pieces, and thereby do it more quickly. The article explained that we have been suddenly told that it will cost 50 per cent. more than was estimated.
  7.15 pm
  The Ministry of Defence, which is not well informed by the Treasury, has said that the rise in the estimated cost from £21 billion to £32 billion, which it does not deny, is not a 50 per cent. rise in costs, because 40 per cent. is due to inflation. It must be anticipating a sharp rise in inflation. It may be wrong—Ministries often are, and the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence do not have the best record for accuracy—but, whatever the reason for it, someone will have to pay for that sudden huge sharp increase. We have to ask colleagues who will pay and how it will be paid.
  We also know, sadly, that there will be a huge increase in the amount of spending on agriculture, both at home and abroad. We shall be spending far more on farmers. Spending on the common agricultural policy is at an all-time record and it is going up to £31 billion. We all know that the CAP is crazy, socially divisive and damaging to the poor and to the third world, but there is nothing that we can do about it. Someone will have to pay for all the extra cost and we have to ask who will pay it and how it will be paid.
  The Treasury has only two options. It can either impose this nasty VAT charge, which will cause so much damage, or sharply increase income tax, either through a special

  555
  extra tax on high-income earners or a general increase. Normally, one would think that it would be less socially divisive, and less damaging to the poor and the pensioners, if we went for an increase in income tax, but the last thing that we want to do when we are recovering from an appalling recession is to put up income tax. Nothing could be more damaging to a recovery.
  Therefore, we have to make the horrible decision to impose VAT on gas and electricity. I hope that colleagues will face up to the matter honestly and directly, as the Chief Secretary did in his splendid speech. The worst thing that we could do is to follow the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—unfortunately, he has left the Chamber—that the answer is to put VAT on gas and electricity but to exclude as many people as possible. We know that those on pensions and income support will be excluded to some extent. My hon. Friend suggested that those above the level should be excluded in some nice way. If we excluded all the nice pensioners above the level by giving them Government grants, we would then have to deal with those with big mortgages, those with big families, those with good war records, those who have a big deficit in their accounts with Lloyds bank or other City banks. The more people we exclude, the more the remaining few people will have to pay.
  I have always taken the view, particularly after my limited experience as an unsuccessful Scottish Member of Parliament when I saw so much money poured into rather silly schemes, that it would be much better if we adopted my suggestion that we should simply send aeroplanes to drop £10 notes, or perhaps £50 notes. in constituencies where there are farmers, because that would ensure that it was better directed, and the money was more closely targeted, than it is when we attempt to target certain sectors and people.
  Nothing is worse than people saying that they will do something nasty, but finding a clever way to exclude all those whom they think are rather important, particularly at a difficult political time. We should not ignore, or deny, the fact that the tax will be horrible and nasty. However, we have to ask people how on earth the money can be raised without it.
  The Chancellor explained that, of the £10 billion extra that the Budget will bring, that measure will account for £2·5 billion. That is a huge sum of money. It is almost as much as the EC spends in three weeks dumping and destroying food. We cannot ignore that much money. It is almost as much as Britain will pay as its contribution to the EC next year. If we cannot get that extra money through the imposition of VAT, what shall we do?
  Apart from the options that I have mentioned, there is only the option of borrowing more. If the Government decide to borrow more, someone will have to pay for that borrowing eventually—even the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge, whether they are pensioners with good war records or pensioners who could not fight because of disabilities. We should encourage the Government to provide some exemptions.
  We must face up to the fact that the economy is in a horrible mess and borrowing is alarmingly high. We simply must secure more money. I hope that, at the same time, we shall concentrate on finding a real solution to the problem—and the only real solution is returning people to work. I hope, Mr. Cormack, that it is not out of order for me to say that those who, like me, hate the VAT increase
  556
  —who think it horrible, and accept that it will be damaging—hope that the Government will think carefully about a five-minute plan which, in my view, would do more than anything else to retore confidence.
  We know that it was the grand work of the Foreign Office—I note that Ministers always run out of the Chamber when the Foreign Office is mentioned—that took us into the exchange rate mechanism. I urge the Minister to make the following statement: "We are imposing the VAT rate, but we want to make it abundantly clear that, because we lost so much money and had to charge so much extra tax following the nightmare of the ERM, we will not return to a fixed exchange rate." That would remove a great deal of uncertainty and would restore a great deal of faith to everyone except the Confederation of British Industry, which receives plenty of EC grants for all the important work that it does for the Community. Everyone except the CBI—and, of course, the National Farmers Union—would be very happy. Given such policy stability, people would know where they were going.
  Let us say in all sincerity that the Chief Secretary's speech provided the Government with an answer to the Newbury problem. The answer is to describe things as they are—to tell people the truth. I believe that, if the Government adopted such an approach, many of our current problems simply would not arise. It might remove all the political uncertainties if the Minister told the Committee clearly and precisely—I know that he is always clear and precise—whether, once the 17·5 per cent. rate has been introduced in two years' time, it will be possible for a Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or even Scottish nationalist Government to do anything about it.
  According to advice that I have received from the Library and from my friends, once the rate has been imposed, we shall find that we cannot reverse it, because of the sixth EC directive, as amended. Perhaps the Government will act further to remove political uncertainties by telling us whether it is true that, subject to a minor technical adjustment—as a result of the Economic and Finance Council meeting that took place in September last year—all the zero rates and other nice things will have to go by the end of 1996.
  I learned that from a House of Commons Library paper. Its authors may have been misguided as a result of information from the Ministry of Defence and others, but this is something that we must know. I admired the Chief Secretary's speech: he is a good chap, and he spoke fairly, honestly and sincerely. His was one of the best ministerial speeches that I have heard for a long time—very fair, very reasonable and very precise. None the less, I hope that the Paymaster General will remove the two minor doubts that I have mentioned.
  We may have been misinformed. Perhaps the House of Commons Library does not know what it is talking about, although it is staffed by sincere, hard-working people. Perhaps the paper that it produced on the 1996 issue was not clear. The public, however, understandably want to know the facts in the current serious economic circumstances. They are entitled to those facts, and I hope that the Paymaster General will clarify the position.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my hon. Friend clarify the position for me? He has spoken eloquently—and, I think, rightly—about the pernicious European dimension to the proposed application of VAT

  557
  to domestic fuel. Does he agree that, were Her Majesty's Government to get a grip on public spending and to slash social security spending—which has been spiralling out of control—by the time of the combined autumn statement and Budget, they could reconsider this pernicious impost, thus easing the worries of many old and sick people?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sure that the Government could do many things; however, despite my admiration for what my hon. Friend has said, we cannot discuss the issue on clause 42. I have suggested some steps that the Government could take to improve their policies—some may be bad, while others may be more sensible. Basically, however, I believe that we must find out whether we have the power to change the position once it has been put in place, and whether we are committed to dispensing with all the zero ratings by 1996.
  I hope that hon. Members will have the courage and determination to face up to the fact that we are in a bit of a mess, that we need a good deal more money and that there is no readily available way of obtaining that money without holding back recovery. If the Government persist with the honesty, integrity and straightforwardness demonstrated by the Chief Secretary's speech, many of our current problems with the business and, indeed, the general community will probably disappear. I believe that, if we tell the truth—no matter how harsh the message may be—we shall receive the support that we deserve.
  Mr. Peter Hain: The speech of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—especially his description of the Chief Secretary—sounded suspiciously like a vote for the Chief Secretary to take the Chancellor's job when the Chancellor is sacked in July.
  Anyone who was canvassing in the Newbury by-election or the county council elections in recent weeks will know that the proposal to impose VAT on fuel was deeply unpopular among voters. Indeed, it was one of the principal reasons for the Government's defeat in Newbury, and the bad results that it achieved in the council elections throughout the country. If, as the Prime Minister has promised, the Government are to learn the lessons of those dreadful defeats, they must recognise the force of one of those lessons and refuse to implement the Budget proposals for increases in VAT on fuel and power.
  The Government should also apologise to the electorate for lying about the increases before the general election. They refused to admit that, all along, they were likely to increase the tax burden, because the sums did not add up —the public sector finance strategy put them in line for such a move—or, perhaps, because of the incompetence with which they pursued their economic policies.
  The Government's own publication, "Social Trends", shows that the most vulnerable members of the community will be hardest hit by VAT increases. According to the latest edition,
  "Generally speaking, the lower down the socio-economic scale a household is, a larger proportion of their total spending goes on the necessities of … fuel, light and power."
  Table 6·3 shows that the professional classes spend just 3·2 per cent. of overall household expenditure on fuel, light and power, while unskilled manual workers and retired people spend 6·1 and 7·1 per cent. Respectively—double the amount spent by the professional classes. According to the
  558
  Government's own statistics, the most vulnerable in our community will be hardest hit—the old, the poor and the disabled.
  The Chief Secretary—who is himself extremely wealthy —does not begin to understand how dreadfully the VAT increase will hit ordinary families and individuals, including pensioners and others on low incomes. The increase will average about £5 a week, perhaps reaching as much as £10 in the case of some families.
  Those increases are attributable to the imposition of VAT. They amount to a great deal of money for someone who is on supplementary benefit, or for low-income families in my Neath constituency. It is diabolical that they should have to bear this burden, on top of the already exorbitant fuel charges that they have cope with.
  It is essential that the Government back down and refuse to apply VAT to standing charges. Standing charges should be abolished for the poorest people in our society, especially for elderly citizens on income support. Many of them pay more in standing charges than they do for their gas or electricity, where gas or electricity, are subsidiary to their main fuel and power needs. The imposition of VAT could result in their standing charges increasing by nearly a fifth. That is completely unacceptable. It is a burden which they will find intolerable.
  7.30 pm
  The Government claim that they will compensate those on benefit for the imposition of VAT on fuel and power, but they have never said that they will compensate them fully. All that the Government have said is that they will compensate them in some yet to be described fashion. I invite the Minister—I shall be happy to allow him to intervene during my speech, if he wishes to respond—to say what the position will be if the fuel bill of a pensioner in my constituency goes up by £5 a week. If that pensioner is on income support, will he or she get £5 a week extra in income support, benefit, or some other entitlement? Will that £5 increase in fuel charges be compensated for directly by a £5 increase in benefit?
  I invite the Minister to intervene and confirm whether that will be the case. I see that he does not intend to do so. Therefore, I can only assume that that will not happen, that a one-for-one matching compensation will not occur and that some of the worst off in our constituencies will consequently suffer the most.
  The point has already been by some Conservative Members that the worst affected will not be just those on benefits. In some ways, those who will be worst affected will be people who are just above income support level —people who receive no income support, or housing benefit, or benefit of any kind. Many of my constituents have told me that they have a small miner's pension, or a miner's widow's pension, which takes them just above, painfully above, the benefit threshold. Nevertheless, it is a trivial amount, when set against their living costs. They are the ones who will be the worst hit by this VAT increase, for they will receive no compensation.
  The result, not just for those people but for ordinary families who are at their wits' end over trying to cope with their fuel bills, will be that they switch off the gas and electricity and freeze. Some of them will therefore die of hypothermia and other consequences of extremely cold weather.
  To the many anomalies that were drawn to the Committee's attention by the hon. Member for Moray

  559
  (Mrs. Ewing) concerning the trigger mechanisms for cold weather payments, I wish to add another. In my constituency, the village of Seven Sisters, which is up one of the valleys, is about 20 miles away from the weather station at the Mumbles. In bitter weather, it can be 3 or 4 deg warmer at the Mumbles than at Seven Sisters. Cold weather payments at Seven Sisters, however, are triggered by the weather station at the Mumbles. Consequently, although the people of Seven Sisters may literally be freezing, the fact that the cold weather payment is triggered by a weather station some miles away—where the temperature is much higher because it is on the coast —means that they are not entitled to it. That anomaly will be made even worse by the exorbitant additional charges that will arise from the imposition of VAT.
  Another aspect of this sorry story affects Wales directly. I understand that British Gas in Wales has irrecoverable debts—money that it cannot get back from some of the poorest in our communities or from businesses that have gone bankrupt. That irrecoverable amount totals £6 million a year. The imposition of VAT on fuel and power will lead to that sum rising by another £1 million a year.
  Who will pay for that, in the end? Those who pay for it will be ordinary gas customers in Wales, including pensioners who are the least able to afford it. They will be hit both directly and indirectly. That will be the consequence of the Government's short-sighted and punitive policy. It is a consequence which, so far, seems to have been overlooked.
  The Home Secretary admitted yesterday on radio that the Government are in a hole. They certainly are. That is partly because there is a massive hole in the Government's public finances. The Chief Secretary referred to i t in his speech. I shall comment on some of the points that he made.
  This VAT imposition is intended to plug the hole in the Government's public finances. They claim that there is some sort of economic recovery. It would be astonishing if there were not an upturn, after the interest rate reduction from 15 to 6 per cent. and the devaluation of the pound by nearly 18 per cent.—at least, until a few months ago. The laws of economic gravity would be defied if there were not an upturn of some sort. That upturn, however, if it is happening, has happened despite the Government, not because of their policies and objectives, and it will be short lived. It is very shallow. That is why the Government are having desperately to cast around for remedies, such as the additional revenue that they will get from imposing VAT on fuel and power.
  Another factor in the equation to which the Chief Secretary referred is the massive public sector borrowing level of £50 billion, or 8 per cent. of GDP. I do not share his optimism. I do not believe that it will decrease significantly over the next few years. It will remain high and will almost reach that level. All the economic indicators for the Government point in an extremely negative direction. For instance, the massive balance of payments gap is running at £1 billion a month. That will increase the Government's difficulties and put a strain on public finances. The balance of payments gap will increase still further, if there is any upturn in consumption.
  Unemployment will similarly increase. The unemployed will suffer, along with everybody else. Indeed, they will suffer more from the imposition of VAT on fuel and power, for they, too, are among the poorest in the
  560
  community. More people will join the dole queues in the coming months and the coming year, despite the somewhat massaged turnaround over the past few months in the official unemployment figures.
  The imposition of VAT on electricity, gas, coal, oil and other fuels has to be seen against the background of personal debt having doubled since the Government came to power in 1979. Families are now more and more stretched and more and more unable to pay the expected fuel increases. In 1981, for example, for every £100 of disposable income, household debt was £57. By 1990, that figure had doubled to £114. Since then, household debt has increased still further. These are difficult times for many families. For many people, the imposition of VAT on fuel and power will be the last straw.
  The upturn that is coming—if, indeed, it manages to stutter along—is consumption-driven. We know, however, that consumption, as a proportion of gross domestic product, is far too high in Britain, that it increased to record levels in 1990 and that it has increased still further since then.
  That helps to paint in the background of the economic difficulties that are facing the Government. The economy will not grow. We shall not be able to generate sufficient revenue to plug the hole in the Government's finances and facilitate the withdrawal of the proposed VAT increases. The economy is burdened by too much debt and by a life style among ordinary families that is based too much on a level of consumption that is far outstripping the economy's capacity to produce the wealth that we need.
  We needed from the Budget not a consumption-driven economy but an investment-driven economy. It should have addressed the structural weaknesses in the economy, not the short-termism that the Chancellor has pursued throughout his tenure of office and which is reflected in the clause.
  Many hon. Members will have received a submission from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which points out:
  "the Budget will have a serious impact on charities' finances. The measures to encourage giving to charities are far outweighed by the imposition of VAT on fuel and power and the reduction in the value of tax credits on dividends."
  In other words, what the Budget gave to charities with one hand is more than taken by the other with the VAT increases on fuel and power.
  VAT on fuel and power will add about £50,000 a year to the RNLI's heating and lighting bills, of which £16,000 will arise in boat house crew rooms, which are so important to safety at sea. The RNLI points out that it is true that, with the reduction in gift aid thresholds, gift aid tax payments will increase. A good part of that arises from the switch from covenant income, on which tax repayments will fall. The gift aid improvement, although it is welcome, goes little way to compensate for the new impositions of the Budget, one of the most pernicious of which is the VAT increase on fuel light and power.
  The Government have claimed, rather dishonestly, that this is a green measure. If they wanted to introduce a green measure, they would adopt the clear and carefully costed proposals that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). His programme for home insulation is entirely self-financing and would reduce the cost of electricity, gas and other fuel bills and would not impose a burden on the Exchequer.

  561
  Britain's home insulation standards are the worst in Europe. The Budget could have tackled that problem by implementing the programme that has been proposed by the Labour party. Instead, the Government went for the option that has nothing to do with environmental safeguards but is intended to get in the billions of pounds that they need to plug the hole in their public finances.
  The proposed increase will be highly inflationary not only for the worst off members of our community but for the whole economy. The retail price index is already going up. The Government's target of increasing the RPI within a range of 1 to 4 per cent. is already under strain and the warning signals are flashing. All the signs are that we shall reach a target of above 4 per cent.—perhaps 5 per cent. or more—by next year.
  The Government are mistakenly allowing the pound to creep up because they think that it will choke off the increase in import prices and in other respects reduce the pressure on inflation. They are so concerned about inflation that they are allowing the pound to float up, but they should be reducing interest rates and not worrying too much about whether the pound floats up or down.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Patrick Cormack): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the subject and many of his colleagues wish to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Hain: I am grateful, Mr. Cormack; I shall bring my remarks to a close.
  The inflationary pressure that will result from this VAT increase will have a serious effect on the economy generally and will catch the Government up in terms of the impact of their other fiscal and monetary policies. Why should poor, old and disabled people pay for the Government's incompetence? This is a vindictive measure by a vindictive Chancellor who will lose his job soon. The only saving grace of the measure is its incompetence. Its effect will be felt at such at time in the electoral cycle that it will bite off the Government's hopes and end their prospects of being re-elected.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Dicks: I had not intended to take part in the debate, but I was concerned by not so much what the Chief Secretary said as, to some extent, the tone in which he said it. Some Back Benchers who have doubts were hoping for some words that would help us to support the Government tonight. Those words were not forthcoming, but I hope that by the end of the evening something will be said that will offer us some encouragement.
  Politics is about perception. Something may be a fact, but if it is perceived differently we must act on the perception. On this issue, the perception is that the imposition of VAT is bad. That may or may not be so, but that is the perception and hon. Members who have marginal seats must act on that.
  The Government must be seen to be listening. The perception is that they are not, and this proposal is another example where there is some doubt about whether the Government realise what is going on in the real world outside the Palace of Westminster. I have said elsewhere and say again that if Ministers left their cars behind and left their contact with the field marshals, generals and
  562
  people whom they meet at Buck house or Clarence house and instead spent their time knocking on doors, perhaps they would have a different view of what is going on.
  Pensioners on and above income support must be heard. I have maintained for years publicly, locally and in here that pensioners are not getting a good enough deal—they never have. I have advocated for several years that between November and February pensioners should get £5 a week irrespective of the weather. If the weather is good, it is a bonus; and if it is not, the money is in their hand, ready to use if the cold weather comes. I fail to see why we cannot adopt that natural commonsense approach rather than wait until somebody on Air Ministry roof puts his finder in the air to decide what the temperature is and which way the wind is blowing. That is a nonsensical approach and should have been reconsidered a long time ago.
  Several colleagues, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), have said that it is no good moaning unless alternatives can be suggested. I have some alternatives that will not be popular on either side of the Chamber, but I will give them anyway. First, we could reduce or do away with overseas aid, which would lead to a saving of £1·6 billion. The vast majority of that aid does not go where the people whose taxes fund it expect it to go. Much of it goes into the back pocket of the bureaucrats and tyrants who run Africa and elsewhere—
  The Tempory Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may refer briefly to other potential destinations, but he should not expound and expand on what he said.
  Mr. Dicks: I take your rebuke, Mr. Cormack.
  The alternative savings should come from the doing away with of overseas aid, saving £1·6 billion, and completely abolishing the arts budget, saving some £700 million. We should also consider the way in which we pay people who come here from abroad—immigrants, regardless of their colour or creed—and get payments immediately, having made no contribution to our society. We should also consider the gross waste of money on AIDS. About £886 million has been spent, but the real figure is probably more than £1 billion. We have done nothing about that. Money is still being wasted on it this year.
  Those alternatives would lead to a saving of £2.5 billion to £3 billion. I have said before that that is how savings can be made. These are the issues that the chattering classes love. That is why the Government, who, unfortunately, react to the chattering classes, prefer to bang and hit the poor and pensioners, who cannot fight back and who the Government know they can take on and beat.
  I accept the point that was made by my hon Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). In a sense, it is too late to make any real adjustments, although I hope, as I said earlier, that we will be told that some further consideration will be given to ensure that those who are just above the threshold get some help.
  An old-age pensioner has written to me saying that she has some savings as a result of her and her husband's care and concern for 40 years. Her husband is now dead. She asks me why she should have to pay more when she has not been feckless and when she has done everything that a good Conservative should. The Government now tell people to think about their pensions early to ensure that

  563
  they are not a drain on the economy later. That lady and her husband did all that, yet now, because she has saved money and has not wasted it, she is being punished. I cannot believe that Ministers want that to happen.
  I beg for some reassurance at 10 pm and for the Government to show that they have realised what is going on, that after last Thursday they are prepared to listen and that they are aware of people's perceptions. I ask Ministers to forget the advice that they get from the Treasury. The people there are the most incompetent crew. They have been wrong for years and they still get it wrong. The Treasury has the highest-paid permanent secretary for the smallest group of people. If we are to get anything right in the economy and if we are to ensure that our pensioners and our poor are not punished, the first thing to do is almost to close down the Treasury, because its advice is useless.
  My many poor constituents—immigrants, Asians and the ordinary white poor—ask what on earth is going on if they have to be punished when people can be given—
  Dr. John Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dicks: No.
  Those constituents ask what on earth is going on when people can get a £30 gift from the Government to watch an opera as a leisure pursuit. We say that we can afford to do that, but that we cannot afford to help the poor. and we say that we must put VAT on their fuel. I have taken heed of your rebuke, Mr. Cormack. I could have said a lot more. I simply say to the Government, "For God's sake listen, for God's sake understand and for God's sake give us some hope at 10 pm so that we can support the Government and not the Opposition."
  Mr. Winnick: If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is really concerned about pensioners, he knows what to do at 10 pm. He will go into the Lobby and vote against the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. If, despite the hon. Gentleman's populist or pseudo-populist remarks, he is really committed to the cause of pensioners, he has a duty and responsibility. We shall watch carefully to see what he does at 10 pm
  Fuel poverty is undoubtedly one of the worst aspects of the winter months for pensioners and for others on low incomes. The Government propose to add to the misery suffered by so many people whose only crime is to be old, to have retired or to be on a low income. Those people will be punished. The Chief Secretary gave some explanation and some rationale for the proposal, and he spoke about the financial problems facing the Government.
  They are financial and economic problems of the Government's own making. Unfortunately for our country, the Government have been in office for 14 years; they are not a Government who have just been elected. The Government say that they face formidable problems. The people who will suffer are those who are least able to bear the burden.
  The report published recently by the social policy research unit at the university of York shows that it is precisely the low-income households that spend a far higher proportion of their income on fuel. The report shows that the proportion of a single pensioner's weekly budget spent on fuel now is just over 18 per cent. By 1995, as a result of the Government's imposition of VAT on domestic fuel, the proportion spent on fuel will be more
  564
  than 20 per cent.—one fifth of a single pensioner's income. We know only too well the low incomes that so many pensioners have.
  The Sunday Express, which is not a newspaper usually associated with the Labour party, wrote about the misery faced by so many pensioners on low incomes during the cold weather two years ago. The newspaper wrote about one widow, whom it named, who lived in Worthing, and described her low income at the time. I do not suppose that, if that good lady is alive and well—we all hope she is —her income has increased except as a result of the pension increase in line with inflation.
  The article says:
  "She has no money left for heating during a big freeze. At night she wears thick pyjamas, three pullovers and woollen socks—and covers herself with three blankets.

  Most of the day she sits in front of the television wearing all these—and a blue scarf and check blanket."
  The article says that she enjoyed watching television. It continues:
  "Of the freezing weather she says"—
  I hope that the Committee bears this point in mind, because it relates very much to what we are discussing now and to the further afflictions being imposed on people such as this lady—
  "'I hate it. My body keeps shivering but it's my hands that feel it most. They are so cold I can't close my fingers or grip anything. I rub my hands to keep them warm, but after a while they get cold again. And I get too tired to keep rubbing them together.'"
  That is one pensioner. There are many like her. In my constituency and in constituencies throughout the country, there are the people about whom I have been speaking—the poor and the old who are frightened and terrified of the winter weather because they simply do not have enough money to keep their accommodation adequately heated.
  I make no apology for the fact that, time after time during very cold spells, I have referred to the fact that the cold weather payments have not been triggered. During the speech by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), I made the point that, according to information I have received from the Library, during this year only one out of 61 weather stations has triggered the cold weather payment. The reason is that, at the 60 other stations, it has not been freezing for seven consecutive days.
  What a farce. Even if it is not freezing, it can be bad enough, as we all know. If the temperature reaches freezing point for one or two days, it is of no use: the money will not be paid. The temperature has to be at freezing point for seven consecutive days, at the end of which the grand sum of £6 a week is paid.
  The problem is important for many of our fellow citizens. We know that so many of the elderly try to spend much of the day during the winter months out of their homes. They go to libraries or to other communal buildings to find warmth and to save on fuel expenses at home. When they put on, as they must do, some form of heating, they often heat only one room. They heat only one room for the same reason as we would in such circumstances. They are no different from us; they are our fellow citizens, and they are not living on another planet or on another continent. Facing the same problems, we should do the same.
  In the main, it is not the elderly who face fuel debt. The reason is that they are so worried about using fuel for which they cannot pay. That is why they put their health at risk, and that is why they are so terrified of the winter.

  565
  That is also why the Committee should be deeply concerned that so many of our retired people are in such terror during the winter months and that is why we should do our utmost to help them.
  One Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), has told us that he will vote against the Government. He has courage, and he knows his duty and his responsibility to his constituents. He will vote with us at 10 pm. What about other Conservative Members? We have heard some of them, such as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, express their concern. What help will they give their constituents if they give their loyalty to the Government? Will they not be in the position they were in when they voted for the poll tax and later deeply regretted it?
  If they feel concern, however reluctant they may be to vote against their own Government and however reluctant they may be to go into the Lobby with Labour Members, they should know their duty when the Division is called. They should understand their duty to their constituents who are in the plight that I have described.
  8 pm
  For pensioners, the position was made worse by what happened in 1980, when the Government decided—the Chief Secretary said nothing of this today—that pensions should increase in line with inflation and not in line with earnings. The latest information is that, as a result of that decision 13 years ago, married couples have lost £26 and single pensioners around £15 every week. That decision was unfair and unjust and has made it that much more difficult for pensioners to cope.
  There is much talk about the improved living standards of some pensioners. It is true that the position of some pensioners who have retired since 1980 and who have occupational pensions is not as acute as that which I have described. In many cases, however, the occupational pension is small—and what about all the other pensioners who retired when there were no ocupational schemes and who have to rely purely and simply, as so many do, on the state pension scheme.
  The plight of pensioners has been affected not only by the decision made in 1980 but by subsequent changes in housing benefit. Many people come to my surgery or write to me asking why they have to find so much in rent and poll tax—or, as it now is, council tax—out of their very limited income. I write to the local authority and ask for an explanation, and I know what explanation I will get: since 1988, local authorities have had no discretion in housing benefit matters. Housing benefit decisions are made by central Government.
  My hon. Friends may be interested to hear that I always send the local authorities' replies to the Minister concerned, and the Minister's reply to my constituent. My constituent may not be happy with the position, but at least he then knows that it is the result of a decision taken not by his local authority but by the Government. The policy decision made in 1988, as a result of which many on small incomes paid more in rent and rates, then poll tax and now council tax, has done much to undermine the living standards of many of our constituents.
  An essential requirement in a developed society is the right to have one's home adequately heated.

  566
  Unfortunately, owing to poverty, many cannot exercise that right in Britain. The Government intend to punish those who are most vulnerable to increased fuel costs.
  The headline in today's edition of The Times refers to the Prime Minister's advice to his colleagues that the Government—and certainly Cabinet Ministers—should not appear to be so arrogant. It seems to me to be the height of arrogance to push through a proposal such as this. There is not a single Minister, in the Cabinet or outside it, who is ignorant of the hardship that the decision is likely to inflict. What is the use of the Prime Minister saying that the Government should show less arrrogance while pushing through schemes that are so wrong and so unpopular?
  Much has been said about last Thursday's decisions, both in the by-election and in the county council elections. People may vote differently on different occasions, and I would be out of order were I to try to speculate on what future general election results might be; but there is no doubt whatever coat the Government are deeply unpopular.
  They are unpopular not simply because of the recession and high unemployment, although they are bad enough, but because of proposals such as this. Similar considerations applied in respect of the poll tax. Many people who could afford to pay and who paid the poll tax knew that it was wrong and unjust that other people earning so much less than them should be paying the same poll tax. They punished the Government on the appropriate occasion.
  Many people on reasonable incomes who can afford to pay VAT on domestic fuel and power know and understand that it is wrong for the Government in office to punish the old and those on low incomes, who have a tremendous struggle to survive during the winter months.
  My hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary referred to the fact that proportionately more elderly people die during the winter months in this country than in other western European countries. Does any Conservative Member believe that there is no link between the large number of deaths we have here, as compared with other European countries, and the poverty that prevents people from keeping their accommodation adequately heated?
  The arrogance of the Government is clear. What is being done is wrong. I only hope that, if there are enough Conservative Back Benchers who agree with us that it is wrong, they will have the courage to do their duty to their constituents when it comes to the vote at 10 pm.
  Sir John Hannam: Several hon. Members have spoken about the effect on charities of the imposition of VAT on fuel and power. All hon. Members are united in their admiration and support for the work that charities do. I know that the Government share that feeling. One has only to remember the large cash support that has been given to voluntary organisations to appreciate that fact.
  I am concerned, however—I know that I speak on behalf of the all-party disablement group—that the removal of zero rating from fuel and power used by charities in the provision of residential care and in the form of grants paid to those on low incomes will have a far-reaching effect on those charities' ability to provide services for the elderly, the sick and the disabled and care for the dying. Unlike local government or businesses engaged in similar activities, those charities will be unable to recover VAT paid on their fuel bills.

  567
  Over the past decade or so, as the level of VAT has risen in stages, I have been involved in and have supported the campaign by the Charities Tax Reform Group, which represents some 300 leading charities and which was once chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health.
  That group has campaigned for a system of relief on or repayment of VAT paid by charities. We hoped that such a system would be granted in the current Budget. Strong representations were made to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in the run-up to it, and my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the implications for our leading charities of the change in the VAT regime.
  In successive Budgets, the Government have responded to the pressure exerted on them with all sorts of increases in tax relief for donations. Those measures signal the importance that the Government attach to charities. They have tried to reimburse charities in different ways through different sorts of reliefs. In the present Budget, charitable giving has been encouraged through measures on payroll giving and gift aid, and I warmly welcome them. On the other side of the coin, charities face greater difficulties on their expenditure side, and the proposed fuel and heating tax will bear down extremely heavily on these already hard-pressed organisations.
  It is an inescapable medical fact that elderly, ill and disabled people tend to require higher temperatures than the population in general. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke of the needs of the elderly, but the sick and the disabled are also known to require special help with the temperature of their accommodation. For example, cancer manifests itself in a need for extra warmth, even in the summer months. Cancer sufferers require extra help with heating.
  The direct needs of people who are cared for by charities produce intensive use of energy. Residential homes have a duty of care to their residents which limits their ability to reduce their heating on either cost or energy efficiency grounds. It is not that simple a choice. Indeed, there is no choice if they are serious about fulfilling caring responsibilities.
  Wearing one of my other hats in parliamentary affairs, I have spoken often in the House about the need for energy efficiency. Extending VAT to fuel and power goes some part of the way to help Britain meet its environmental objectives and international obligations on CO2 emissions that were agreed at the Rio Summit. On that, the Government must be congratulated.
  However, the laudable aims of environmental protection cannot and must not take absolute priority over the needs of the weakest members of our society. For that reason, I ask the Government to give further consideration to the special and limited concerns of charities. We all know that charities which provide residential care cannot simply turn down the heating to compensate for increased fuel costs.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) mentioned disability aids. Those aids enable people to live as independent a life as possible. Grant-making charities, which provide money to those in need of help with their heating demands will also have to cope with increased requirements on their resources, whatever assistance is given in the autumn to people on low incomes. For example, the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund expects a large increase in requests for help with fuel bills. In 1992,
  568
  the fund disbursed more than £3 million in grants to patients, of which £850,000—by far the largest category —was in specific grants for fuel.
  The Abbeyfield society will face an extra VAT cost of more than half a million pounds. Mencap will face an extra burden of £200,000 per year. There is a list of all the charities and the amounts that they will require. The cost to the charities will be about £27 million a year.
  There is a continuing discussion about the introduction of VAT on fuel and heating. It is likely that, because the focus of the debate has been on the general issue, the specific anxieties of charities have had little chance of being aired before today. Therefore, the Government have had little opportunity to respond to those specific anxieties.
  Mr. David JamiesonI have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I have agreed with many of them. If he is sincere in his concern for charities, will it be reflected in his vote tonight?
  Sir John Hannam: If the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself until I reach the conclusion of my speech, he will hear the answer to that question. The answer is related to the points that I am making.
  Mr. Jamieson: Is that no?
  Sir John Hannam: It may be.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) has just entered the Chamber. By intervening, he may prevent some of his colleagues, some of whom have been here for a long time, from making a speech.
  Sir John Hannam: It is easy for Opposition Members to taunt Conservative Members and try to persuade them to declare how they intend to vote. That is an understandable ploy, but it does not relate to the facts of the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said that, in a debate on the Finance Bill, it was impractical to attempt to change the centre core of a Budget proposal to a large extent. If one takes out part of the core, one destroys the whole Budget. Of course, it is possible to change parts of the Finance Bill. That is why amendments have been tabled. I support that.
  To answer the question of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, I am working towards attempting to change the Government's attitude to a part of their proposal. I support the overall proposal in principle on environmental grounds, as I have explained, but I am worried about the part of it which affects charities.
  8.15 pm
  In the representations which I and other hon. Members and representatives of the various charities made to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Treasury Ministers during the run-up to the budget, the point was pursued that, because there had been successive impositions of VAT on charities, some attempt should be made to allow charities to benefit from a VAT refund system or zero rating.
  In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor acknowledged the need to compensate people in receipt of benefits. This debate is the time to put that into practice and for the Government to find a way of minimising the impact of such a change on charities. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will give

  569
  an assurance at the end of the debate that, between now and Report stage, further discussions will be held so that we know that the impact of the VAT change on charities will be carefully considered.
  It is a fact that charities which provide residential care and grants do not have the chance to recover VAT, as local authorities or others who operate residential homes do. Charities are in a unique position.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said that, if zero rating was removed from fuel, it could not be reapplied at a future date. That worries charities deeply. The campaign for zero rating for charities and specifically disablement charities has been maintained for several years. If zero rating cannot be reintroduced once it has gone, that is of great significance to charities.
  I argue strongly that, between now and Report stage, the Government should carry forward the discussions held with the charities and the Charities Tax Reform group to a point at which some way of alleviating the impact of the VAT charge can be found. If we do not find a way, I and others who have been involved in the campaign will consider carefully how best we can exert our influence to obtain help for the charities.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. It may help the House to know that the Chair has neither the power nor the desire to limit speeches, but that seven hon. Members who have said that they wish to speak. If they limit their speeches to 10 minutes or thereabouts, they should all get in. If they do not, they will not.
  Ms Diane Abbott: It is fascinating for Opposition Members to watch Conservative Members wriggle around about the proposal to impose VAT on fuel and heating. They know that it is unfair. They know that it is a vote loser. Moreover, they know that it will hit them in the run-up to the next general election. But many of them lack the guts to follow the logic of their arguments and vote against the measure tonight. That is precisely the craven attitude on the part of Tory Members, who voted for the poll tax although they knew it was a disaster, which thrust us into that long saga that wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers' money.
  The proposal to impose VAT on fuel illustrates one of the recurring themes of the 14 years of Tory Government. Tories simply do not know the meaning of the word fair. The poll tax was killed despite all the protestations of the Treasury Bench and all the boasts that it would be the flagship of the Thatcher era. It was killed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, because it was widely felt, even by people who could afford to pay it, that it was simply unfair.
  The reason why the imposition of VAT on fuel has angered the electorate so catastrophically for the Government is precisely the same. The Chief Secretary, that glamour boy of the Tory right, put the point better than I could have done myself. He said that putting VAT on fuel was for the Government a way of raising revenue which was consistent with their principles. Precisely. Throughout the Tory Administration we have seen them pursue policies which penalise the poorest and help the richest in their society.
  It is worth while pointing out that, in the past decade —the Tory decade—for the first time in the history of
  570
  modern capitalism, the established trend towards greater equality of income and wealth has come to a shuddering halt.
  During the Thatcher era, those in the bottom 10 per cent. income group saw their incomes rise by a mere 12 per cent. while those in the top 10 per cent. saw their incomes rise by 38 per cent. Those in the top 1 per cent. income band, presumably including Mr. Asil Nadir, saw their incomes rise by a whacking 60 per cent. That was the hallmark of Thatcherism and Toryism in the 1980s. They took from the poor and gave to the wealthy.
  I shall not waste time discussing the so-called environmental justification for the VAT proposals, because they are wholly fraudulent and cynical. I need cite only the findings of my Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee which, having taken evidence, including listening to the Chancellor, said that the proposals were designed primarily for revenue reasons.
  But even if that Committee had not said that, the fact that VAT is to be imposed not simply on fuel consumption but on standing charges gives the game away, since standing charges do not relate to greater fuel savings. I agree with those who have said that standing charges for gas and electricity should be abolished because they bear most heavily on pensioners and the poor.
  Opposition Members have opposed consistently—and will oppose them honourably in the Lobby tonight—the VAT proposals for three main reasons: their effect on the elderly and poor; the fact that they are not reversible; and because they pave the way for other economic attacks on the most vulnerable in society.
  In Hackney there are over 25,000 retired people. I will not repeat the arguments that have been adduced about the effects of what the Government propose on the retired. The Chief Secretary entirely fails to understand, let alone meet, the arguments that bear on the special case of the elderly. The right hon. Gentleman harks on about the RPI. He must accept that that index is an average. The elderly often spend twice as much proportionately of their incomes on fuel. I refer not simply to the rich elderly but to all elderly, and that makes them a special case.
  The elderly are a special case also because of the hypothermia issue. Turning down or doing without heating is not a question of choice or luxury for the majority of the elderly. For many of them, during the coming winter and winters to come, whether or not to have the heating on will be a matter of life or death.
  Anyone who deals with the elderly, as most of us do —whether they are our relatives or constituents attending our surgeries—knows that those above retirement age have a morbid fear of debt. People of my age and the ages of most hon. Members do not have that fear. Whatever the Government may tell them about the RPI, compensation for this or that and council tax changes, many elderly people will be so frightened by the prospect of rising bills that they will resort to self-rationing. They will sit in the cold at risk to their health because of the fear of falling into debt. I cannot believe that Treasury Ministers conduct surgeries or meet the elderly. If they did, they would not be advocating such callous proposals.
  We are told that people on income support and income support-related benefits will have those benefits uprated in line with the RPI. I have pointed out the deficiency of that approach, since the RPI is an average and the people for whom we are most concerned, the elderly and the poor,

  571
  pay disproportionate amounts of their income on fuel. Uprating their benefit by the average will not meet their problem.
  We must consider those who are just above the income support level. Tory Members, and particularly Ministers, love to expound on social security scroungers and make out that millions of people are living on income support through choice. Nobody can seriously believe that. People do not live on that degree of benefit by choice. Focusing help solely on people on income support and income support-related benefits simply increases the poverty trap.
  Many people are now dependent on housing benefit to pay their housing association or private sector rents. They dare not return to work because they could not afford to pay their rent if they came out of the income support category. We shall add to those millions the millions of people who will not dare return to work because they will be unable to pay their fuel bills, since they will no longer be in receipt of income support-related help. It represents a bitter poverty trap for the majority of people involved, who would prefer the dignity and freedom of working for a living, rather than being dependent on means-tested benefits.
  Many Tory Members are trying to ease their consciences by talking about the Government's compensation package. They should, in the few hours remaining before we vote tonight, examine statements made by Ministers about that compensation package. I have noticed since the Budget speech that every Minister who opens his or her mouth about that package changes the nature of the compensation. Conservative Members are salving their consciences on the basis of an unseen compensation package, the contents of which vary from one speech to another. They are buying a pig in a poke and our constituents will make them pay for that.
  We oppose the proposed changes because of their effect on the old and the poor. Also, contrary to what many Conservative Members claim, under EC law they are not reversible. In any event, they are just a curtain-raiser for imposing VAT on children's clothes and cuts in welfare spending. If we do not draw the line here in defending the old and the poor, the most vulnerable in society will pay the price for the Government's economic mismanagement.
  It is incredible to note the way in which Ministers have wrung their hands about the public sector borrowing requirement. To hear them agonise over that is similar to listening to them agonise over law and order and the state of the schools. Who has been in power for the past 14 years? Whatever they say about the PSBR, my hon. Friends and I did not borrow the money. Whatever Opposition Back Benchers may have liked a Labour Government to do, under the tutelage of the canny Scotsmen on our Front Bench, we would not have run up the sort of PSBR that the present Government face.
  The Tories are trying to claim that what they propose has been made necessary by unforeseen circumstances. They say that nobody knew that the recession would last so long. That is nonsense. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, among other bodies, said some years ago that the recession would be longer and deeper than the Government were anticipating.
  Let us be blunt about whether the Prime Minister and others lied to the electorate before the last election. The answer is that they did. Many commentators and economists have said that the public sector borrowing figures released by the Government before the election
  572
  were deliberately massaged downwards, since to have revealed the true figures would have been to reveal the need, soon after the election, to do precisely what the Government are doing, which is to put up direct and indirect taxes. If I am asked whether the Conservatives lied, the answer is that they did and one need only read the specialist press at the time to see that informed people could not understand how they produced such low PSBR figures.
  At the last election, the Conservatives practised a fraud on the electorate. The first instalment of the price that they are having to pay for that occurred last Thursday. On behalf of the old and cold of Hackney, I hope that, in the coming general election, the Conservatives will pay the full price for their wholly fraudulent claim at the last election to be the party of low taxation.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I hope that the Government will give further thought to the impact of the extension of VAT on charities, particularly charities whose objects are the relief of poverty and support of the frail and needy. I hope that they will also think carefully about the predicament in which disabled people could find themselves in consequence of the extension of VAT to domestic fuel and power.
  Having said that, I wish at the outset to make plain my belief that the Chancellor is right, in all the circumstances, to extend the VAT base and, in particular, to address the question of domestic fuel and power.
  The fact is that we must pay more taxes. The Government's borrowing has grown beyond what almost anyone, even the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) with her crystal ball, foresaw a year ago, due to the continuation of exceptionally difficult economic conditions. If we were to allow that situation to continue, true hardship would result. Such borrowing would inevitably lead to high interest rates and high inflation and that would cause serious hardship not least to pensioners, who suffer most from high inflation.
  8.30 pm
  At its present level, the PSBR represents a real threat to sustained economic recovery. Our aspirations to provide public goods—education, health care and help to the needy—have been outrunning our willingness to pay for them. There should be no sacred cows in public expenditure and my right hon. Friends at the Treasury are right to look radically at the spending pattern that they have inherited and to search for unjustified items of public expenditure. Where the case for public provision is clear cut, however, my constituents and I would rather pay for it through taxes than stack up a dangerous burden of debt.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his courage. There are no tax increases that would be popular. Some hon. Members who acknowledge the importance of reducing the PSBR have blithely suggested that alternative remedies might have been found. It is an illusion to suppose that any alternative tax increase would not have been vehemently attacked just as irresponsibly and opportunistically by the Opposition.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is right in his judgment about how to set about increasing taxation. After all, it is vital that we do not increase business taxes and knock the recovery on the head. It is sensible to avoid the disincentive of higher income tax.

  573
  My right hon. Friend is also right to adopt a long-range measure to protect the environment. His policy addresses two problems simultaneously and with equal validity—the problem of the PSBR and the need, in the interests of the environment, to reduce energy consumption. [Interruption.] Whatever their huffings and puffings, it is a certainty that, if the Labour party had had the opportunity, it would have extended VAT to domestic fuel and power. It would have been right to do so because that policy will make a significant impact on carbon dioxide emissions. It is right and necessary that we should introduce such a policy in accordance with the pledges that we made at the Earth summit in Rio.
  The Government's policies have brought energy costs to consumers down, which has benefited households, but, at the same time, has tended to encourage additional consumption. My right hon. Friend was therefore right to bring households into line with businesses and, at the same time, bring United Kingdom taxation into line with that in other countries. Unlike the carbon tax, which the Liberal Democrats espouse—not a single member of that party is in the Chamber now—VAT on domestic fuel and power will have no damagiang impact on businesses.
  I also congratulate my right hon. friend on his immediate acceptance of the need to help people on low incomes, who would be particularly affected by the change in VAT. He made that point immediately during his Budget statement and reiterated it when he wound up the Budget debate. There are two indispensable and intertwined strands in the Conservative tradition: the commitment to sound finance and the commitment to provide care for people in need.
  My right hon. Friend has recognised that families on low incomes spend a larger proportion of their household budget on fuel and power than other families. He is well aware of the findings of the 1991 family expenditure survey, which revealed that the poorest 20 per cent. of households spent 11 per cent. of their weekly budget on fuel, whereas better-off households spent 5 per cent. and the wealthiest spent 3 per cent. My right hon. Friend has therefore promised to help people on low incomes by increasing income-related benefits and to do so by next April, before the new bills are due. That pledge is additional to the help that has been given in recent times to pensioners on income support.
  I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to extend that sympathetic and practical approach to the charities that support the frail and the vulnerable. That would be in keeping with his pledge to help the poor and needy directly with their fuel costs and with the Government's admirable record of extending tax concessions to charities.
  The Government, in their negotiations in the European Community on our behalf on the completion of the single market, have resolutely defended the fiscal reliefs that they have provided to charities in the United Kingdom. It would be a pity to abnegate, unilaterally, such an important relief as zero rating, particularly because, as I understand it, once removed, it cannot be restored other than by a new agreement of the Council of Ministers.
  The impact of VAT on domestic fuel and power will be significant on charities whose object are to help the poor, the sick and the disabled. As has already been mentioned, in 1992 the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund gave £800,000 in grants for fuel. Sense, the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association, estimates that the extension of VAT will increase its costs of running residential homes and
  574
  centres by £32,000. Methodist Homes for the Aged, which runs Cedar Lawn in my constituency, reckons that the overall cost to the charity of the 17·5 per cent. VAT will be £143,000 in a full year.
  The Home Farm Trust—which is also important in my constituency: it runs homes in Cherington and Bidford —calculates that its costs of VAT on fuel and power will be £60,000, which will mean an increase of £2·30 in its weekly charges. It has made the important point that that increase will have to flow straight back in charges to local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) said, the Abbeyfield Society has calculated that the VAT extension will cost it no less than an extra £500,000.
  The Government are looking to such charities to play an increasingly important role in the delivery of their social policy. It is timely, with the introduction of care in the community, to review the VAT regime for charities. I understand, of course, that the present fiscal constraints on the Government may make it difficult to make a substantial, immediate concession. I believe, however, that my right hon. Friends should pause before requiring charities to pay additional VAT on fuel and power.
  As I have already suggested, charities are being brought more formally and extensively into the panoply of social provision. They are being asked by the Government to provide residential homes, day centres, respite care and many other services. They are being asked to demonstrate their cost-effectiveness, to tender alongside commercial organisations and to compete in effectiveness with local authority providers.
  Commercial organisations and local authorities, however, are able to recover VAT, whereas charities cannot recover it on the greater part of their spending. That irrecoverable VAT is already costing charities about £300 million a year. The extension of VAT to domestic fuel and power will place charities at a further disadvantage. In the interests of policy coherence and of achieving fair competition in that particular market, the Government should reconsider.
  The net benefit to public funds of requiring charities to pay VAT on domestic fuel and power would, in any event, be small. The Government estimate, that when the system is fully operational, charities may pay £25 million a year. It is quite reasonable to suppose that some three quarters of that money would come back in the cost of contracts to local government. Moreover, if charities have to pay the additional VAT, they will be less able to pursue their role when it is not contractual, but complementary to that of local and central Government in the relief of poverty. Apart from the humanitarian consideration, in the end that would save the Government money, too.
  I hope therefore that my right hon. Friends will extend compensation to charities that are helping those in need, whether through grants or the provision of services. I also hope that my right hon. Friends at the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will listen carefully to what charities are well placed to tell them about the detailed impact of VAT on fuel and power among vulnerable people.
  It is clear that income-related benefits will not be a sufficient means of compensation. We must also look to the needs of the long-term sick and disabled who receive non-means-tested benefit, such as invalidity benefit, and

  575
  are just above the income support level. Many disabled people do, unavoidably, incur additional costs due to their disability.
  People with limited mobility or poor circulation do not maintain their body temperature as well as the rest of us, and have to spend more on heating. The disabled have a range of needs which mean that they use more energy at home. Incontinent people have to pay for the cost of extra laundry; people with special diets have to use electric blenders; severely disabled people need lifts, which are expensive in energy terms, but crucial to independent living. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has found that 51 per cent. of disabled people spend more on fuel and power than they would if they were not disabled, while Department of Social Security research has concluded that disabled people spend an average of £1.44 per week more than the rest of us.
  When I asked my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury a question on 4 March about VAT and charities, he said:
  "The Government always listen sympathetically on such matters."—[Official Report, 4 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 447.]
  I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends will listen sympathetically today and during the passage of the legislation and, again, in the autumn. If they find themselves unable to exempt charities from VAT on their non-business activities altogether, I hope that they will at least pause before imposing an additional VAT burden on charities.
  If they conclude that it is impossible to relieve charities of VAT, either because of the administrative complexity or for the reason suggested by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary earlier—because they are loth to provide a tax concession that would benefit Eton college at the same time as Help the Aged—I hope that they will look for a remedy along the lines of other European countries and offer grant in aid. That would enable the Government to target charities whose business is to help those in need.
  In the meantime, I hope that amendment No. 5 is not pressed to a Division. I believe that it will be possible to find common ground on the subject. I am confident that my right hon. Friends will wish to think further on the problem.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Conservative speakers have today made much of the public sector borrowing requirement, but have omitted to say who ran it up, why they did so and how different methods can be used to reduce it. Some Conservative Members also discovered the usefulness of seeming green. They forget that the Secretary of State for the Environment did not even mention VAT on fuel as a green option in his recent consultation paper on climate change.
  The demand for heating is notoriously inelastic. If anyone cuts back on heating, it will be those on low incomes. Those people should be at the heart of our debate as it is they who face the cruel choice between becoming colder or cutting other essential items. I say "colder" as there is already overwhelming evidence that large numbers of people cannot afford to keep warm.
  Two recent Scottish studies show that 70 per cent. of respondents in deprived areas said that their houses were too cold. The report "Cold Comfort" from Age Concern focuses on the elderly and contains many revealing and alarming facts. I urge all Conservative Members to read it. It says that the morning room temperatures of 81 per cent.
  576
  of elderly people are below the guidelines of the World Health Organisation and that the main reason for low temperatures is lack of money. It states that two thirds of those asked in the survey would spend any extra money that they received from pensions or other sources on heating. It also states that 30,000 to 40,000 more people die in this country in the winter than in other European countries and that there are more than twice as many cold-related diseases in this country than in any other European country. It found that a staggering 750,000 elderly people were at risk of hypothermia in the winter months.
  8.45 pm
  How dare the Government put those already at risk even more at risk? Those people need help with their heating, not the opposite. Today we should be discussing the means by which pensioners and other low-income groups should receive such help. The Government like us to believe that no one on a low income will be worse off as a result of the measure. Earlier, we saw the Chief Secretary weaving and evading the subject.
  It is clear that there will not be full compensation, even for those on income-related benefits. There are thousands of poor people who are not on income-related benefits; for example, 700,000 pensioners—one in three—who could claim income support do not do so. About 2·35 million pensioners get between 1 and 39 per cent. above income support levels. We are talking about at least 3 million poor pensioners who will receive no help.
  The measure will affect not just pensioners, but millions of other people on low incomes. A recent report of the Policy Studies Institute called "Credit and Debt" revealed that, of those earning £100 a week, 5 per cent. had problems with electricity debts and 6·4 per cent. with gas debts. The percentages of unemployed people with similar problems were even higher. One young mother came to my surgery only two or three weeks ago and said that, although she was on a low income, she had to spend £25 a week on electricity because her house was appallingly damp. She is not alone—a recent survey on the condition of Scottish homes revealed that 423,000 houses in Scotland suffered from damp, serious condensation or mould. A recent Shelter report revealed that 120,000 children in Scotland faced severe health problems because of living in damp homes.
  What right has the Conservative party to tell people living in such homes to reduce their heating in the interests of our planet or to spend more on heating in the interests of the Exchequer? If the Government cared about those people or were even faintly green, they would spearhead a massive home insulation drive, which is what Edinburgh district council is trying to implement through policies of insulation, window replacement and central heating for elderly people.
  Edinburgh district council was promised £30 million in its capital allocation for housing, but because the Government got their sums wrong—they said that £15 million had to come from council house sales, when the figure was only £10 million—Edinburgh district council has a shortfall of £5 million. Therefore, it cannot pursue its desired policies on home insulation—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is saying that that is not relevant, I must tell him that it is extremely

  577
  relevant. If the Government claim to be green, they should be implementing such policies, not producing spurious green measures such as those proposed in the Budget.
  As well as claiming that the proposals are green, the Government claim that they will help the public sector borrowing requirement. There are PSBR problems, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) asked: who caused the problems in the first place? If the Government were more confident of the prospects for the economy, they could afford to be more relaxed about the PSBR. The fundamental solution to the problem is to gain economic growth, followed by a policy of progressive taxation and possibly taxes on luxury items. VAT on heating is the most regressive taxation imaginable. As York university's social policy research unit report, issued over the weekend, said, the top fifth of income earners spend an average of £13 a week on heating and the bottom fifth spend £11. The difference is small and the figure is a high percentage of a single pensioner's income.
  VAT on heating is almost a second poll tax and will do as little good for the Conservative party as the poll tax. The result will be more poverty and more ill health, with all the public expenditure implications inherent in that—or, more probably, a combination of the two. It is a totally unacceptable, but typical, Government measure. It punishes the poor for the mistakes made by the Government and should be thrown out tonight.
  Mrs. Browning: I shall not detain the Committee long as I was fortunate enough to make a long speech on Second Reading and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary accepted an intervention from me this afternoon. However, I must put on record in Committee my continuing concern that pensioners, the disabled, the frail, the elderly and people of whatever age who very much rely on heating should be granted proper compensation in the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in the autumn.
  I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend on the subject and I understand the need to raise through taxation sufficient money to reduce the PSBR. I would say to Opposition Members, although no Liberal Members are present, that had the Government addressed the PSBR in the Budget, the cries from the Opposition Benches would have been accusing the Government of irresponsibility and profligacy and all the other arguments that would have been levelled at us.
  It is a matter of on-going concern. Perhaps one of the disadvantages of announcing a tax a year in advance and, for the 17·5 per cent. rate, two years in advance, is that it gives Opposition Members a chance to make hay with the policy. On the plus side, it gives my right hon. Friends the opportunity to listen carefully to the concerns of Conservative Members.
  I am sure that those who depend on income-related benefits will have proper compensation, but I reiterate my concern, particularly for pensioners who are just above the level at which they could claim income-related benefits. One would not classify them as wealthy; as hon. Members have said, they have been frugal during their working lives and they may have small occupational pensions and some money in the building society. While the fall in interest
  578
  rates is welcome in the business sector and from the point of view of mortgage payers, people on fixed incomes rely on the interest from building societies on their life savings.
  I urge my right hon. Friends to spend the months between now and the announcement in the autumn listening carefully, particularly to what Conservative Members are saying about that group of people.
  I also ask my right hon. Friend to address a technical point. I am not sure whether I have interpreted it correctly, but I should be grateful if he would address it tonight. We have been assured that when the announcements are made in the autumn, the increases will come into effect in April before VAT is levied on fuel bills. I am aware that VAT involves a tax point in that VAT becomes payable from the date of the bill.
  Will my right hon. Friend confirm that people who have their electricity or gas meters read in the last two weeks of March and who receive a bill during the first two weeks of April, when VAT becomes applicable, will not have to pay VAT on bills which are received in the VAT period but relate to fuel consumption in the previous three months? I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could provide some clarification as I have received one or two letters on that specific point.
  I shall not detain the Committee any longer, as other hon. Members wish to speak, except to say that I hope that my right hon. Friend has listened to my intervention earlier in the debate and to the representations made particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who represents a neighbouring constituency in Devon.
  Devon has a high retirement population. We are pleased when people from other constituencies decide to retire there, but we are only too well aware that it is not a wealthy part of the country. We have high water charges and the prospect of high fuel bills in addition is causing great concern to my constituents.
  Mr. John Hutton: Opposition Members have rightly drawn attention to the inequities of the Government's proposals in clause 42 to impose VAT on domestic fuel and power. To their credit, some Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), have also drawn the Government's attention to their unease about the proposals.
  In stark contrast to Opposition Members, Conservative Members have been divided into those who wish to delude themselves that the Government have not broken their election promises by bringing clause 42 to the House, which of course they have, and others, such as the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), who have made it clear that they have no intention of supporting the Government in the Division Lobby tonight.
  I speak for many of my hon. Friends when I say that it has not been an edifying spectacle to see Government Back Benchers in such complete disarray. I suspect that those on the bottom line tonight, as in other debates, is that the Government Front Bench are dragging Back Benchers by the nose through the Division Lobby, and I hope that some Conservative Members will do what they have said tonight and withhold their support from the Government.
  In addition to exposing the inequities behind clause 42 and its impact on those struggling to make ends meet on income support, my hon. Friends have also drawn

  579
  attention to the bogus environmental and green arguments that the Government have used in a tawdry attempt to justify clause 42.
  Later in my speech I shall say something about the environmental case for clause 42, if there is one. However, I remind Conservative Members who might be considering supporting the Government tonight to look carefully at the timing that the Government propose for the implementation of clause 42 and draw their attention to how close that would be to the likely date of the next general election. If there is one thing that should be tattooed across the forehead of every Conservative Member it is the poll tax and how its prominence in the run-up to the last general election caused the Government considerable discomfort. I suspect that the same will happen over the implementation of clause 42.
  Some of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), drew attention to the Government's PSBR problems and the fact that clause 42 owes its origins not to any green concern stemming from Rio but to the Government's desire to balance the books, which are seriously out of kilter. In that context, we need to be clear that the imposition of VAT will be extremely regressive and will hit those on low incomes particularly badly. Some of my hon. Friends have already drawn attention to the precise implications of clause 42 on those on income support. Those with incomes of more than £800 a week spend only 3 per cent. of their weekly expenditure on fuel and power, whereas those on incomes of below £60 a week spend 13 per cent.—the impact on those on low incomes is nearly four and a half times greater. That is disgraceful.
  In my constituency, more than 10,000 men and women currently claim income support, and of those more than 3,000 people draw the state retirement pension. Crude arithmetic would lead me to conclude that if we assume that, at the lowest point, clause 42 would increase weekly fuel bills by £1·50, we are talking about between £750,000 and £1 million being withdrawn from the local economy. That is in addition to the acute economic difficulties stemming from the severe redundancies at Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering in the past two years. Those considerable sums of money will have a regressive deflationary impact on the local economy of Barrow and Furness. It is disgraceful that those on desperately low incomes are being forced to pay the price of the Government's gross economic incompetence, yet that is precisely what clause 42 envisages.
  It has also been clear from today's debate, particularly from the comments by the Chief Secretary, that the Government propose no specific measures to ease the impact of this dramatic hike in fuel bills which most of our constituents will be required to pay. The Government's promise that RPI indexation will reflect increases in fuel bills is clearly untruthful. There is no way such indexation will compensate those on low incomes for the extra £1·50 or £2 a week that they will be asked to pay once the clause reaches the statute book. We are talking about an attempt to balance the books, which are in their current disastrous state because of the Government's incompetence.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) has said, there is a long list of precedents for this move—whenever the Government are in economic difficulties, it is always those on low incomes who are asked to fork out the necessary funds.
  580
  9 pm
  As for the environmental arguments for the clause, it is worth bringing to the Committee's attention the Department of Trade and Industry's assessment of the likely increase in fuel prices. It is estimated, for instance, that carbon dioxide emissions are projected to remain constant, at about 22 million tonnes a year, until the year 2020, even taking into account the high prices that will go with additional VAT on fuel bills. That was the estimate given in the Department's energy paper No. 59, published in October 1992.
  The Treasury's best assessment is a modest drop of 1·5 million tonnes in carbon dioxide by the year 2000 as a result of this measure. It is worth speculating about whether other measures, such as promoting home insulation and draught proofing, might have produced a faster, fairer way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
  While we are on the subject of the Government's record of promoting energy and fuel efficiency—green measures —it is worth pointing out that the Government's green house programme, designed to assist local authorities with energy efficiency, was worth £45 million in 1992–93 but is due to be cut to only £5 million in the next fiscal year. That is the true measure of the Government's commitment to environmental measures.
  It is clear to my hon. Friends and to me—and, I suspect, to Conservative Members—that the Government's case is bogus and tawdry. I am afraid that it is yet another naked attempt to punish those who are least able to defend themselves. That is why, tonight as on other occasions, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will resist the Government's proposals.
  Dr. Marek: A succession of Conservative Members have this evening said, "I fully support the Government, but … " I suspect that many of them are rather new and do not understand how Ministers operate. The plain fact is that the Treasury wants the money, and it will get it if Back Benchers vote to get it. Treasury Ministers will make as few concessions as they think they can possibly get away with. That is why they have arranged matters so that no details are to be given out on whether charities will be compensated or on the rate of indexation—at any rate, not until the autumn statement some time in November. If Conservative Back Benchers want to believe Ministers—who say that they will look a little more carefully at the problem—it is obvious that they have not been here long, or, if they have, they have not been listening hard.
  One of the problems is that Treasury Ministers do not live in the real world. Their houses are not draughty and do not cost much to keep warm. Those who work in the Treasury building giving advice to Ministers do not live in the real world either. They all live in London, in the south-east of England, where it is generally warmer than elsewhere. They therefore have no experience of paying a lot for electricity or gas; they lack the experience of many other citizens, especially those who live in the northern-most parts of the country.
  Another Conservative fallacy, heard this evening, was based on the idea that it is difficult to unpick a Budget. I do not see why we cannot unpick this little bit of Tory political dogma and get rid of it. It is not due to come into effect until 1994, and not fully into effect until 1995, so there is plenty of time. The sob stories delivered by one or two Conservative Members simply will not wash.
  On 27 March 1992, the Prime Minister said:

  581
  "We have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT."
  That was a few days before the election. People throughout the country—I know this because I have been campaigning in the local elections, as have many Labour Members—have asked whether the Government were lying when they said that, whether they were bare-faced liars. I believe that there is no other explanation. They were either bare-faced liars or they were incompetent.
  I suspect that the Government wanted to win the election, and they were worried because the opinion polls showed that the Labour party was ahead. Anything would do, and did, so long as the hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Conservative Benches by fraud tonight were enabled to win that election. It is clear that the country has recognised what they were up to; it has rumbled them as cheats and liars. It will not forgive them easily.
  The Government have lied about value added tax, national insurance contributions and mortgage tax relief. Worse than that, they are now introducing a measure that cannot be removed by a succeeding Labour Government and that will hurt the worst-off in society most and the best-off least. Even worse, they are putting VAT on standing charges.
  Standing charges are not very much to us as Members of Parliament with the salaries that we get. I can manage to pay standing charges; Conservative Members can manage to pay standing charges. Treasury Ministers—they do not live in the real world; they all live in London and the south-east—can afford to pay standing charges. I know that thousands of my constituents find it difficult to pay standing charges.
  My hon. Friends have admirably made the case—I will not repeat it because time is getting short—that many people dare not spend a lot of money on electricity. They would rather go cold and hungry, because they do not want to fall into energy debt by spending too much on heating. They save on their heating, but they have to spend money on standing charges. Now the Government, without any sign of remorse—they regret nothing, to translate a famous phrase—are prepared to put VAT on standing charges.
  I agree that the public sector borrowing requirement is in a mess. It is in a mess because the Government do not have, and never have had, an economic policy. They were forced out of the exchange rate mechanism, which they went into at too high a level. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) is saying, but if it is that the Opposition did not criticise it at the time, that is true. That was for the very good reason that we did not want to run the country down.
  Conservative Members may laugh, but I always thought that DM2·95 was far too high a rate. However, Mr. Morris, you will not find in Hansard one statement in which I said that it was too high, although I believed it. I did not say it, because I believed that it was our duty to pull together to see if we could get the economy right. We could not do it, and the Government found out at the end of the day that DM2·95 was too high. They had no economic policy then; they have no economic policy now.
  The Government have run up a PSBR. They have a balance of payments problem of about £14 billion a year in the middle of a recession. Taxation, as a percentage of gross domestic product, is near the 40 per cent. Mark—7
  582
  or 8 per cent. higher than when Labour was last in office, in the 1970s. We are much more highly taxed than we were before.
  In spite of all that, the Chief Secretary says that the Government need to do something about the PSBR of more than £50 billion projected for this year and have decided to hit the poorest in society by putting VAT on electricity and gas bills. I want to know why they do not increase the highest rate of income tax from 40 per cent. to the higher levels seen elsewhere in Europe. The Committee will remember that, in the Budget for the year 1988–89, the 60 per cent. top rate of income tax was reduced to 40 per cent.
  Why do not the Government think first about taxing those who can pay? For example, in The Guardian today, an article headed "30 per cent. rise for Asda chief states:
  "The chairman of Asda Property Holdings took a pay increase of almost 30 per cent. last year. The company's annual report shows that Emanual Davidson received £232,000 against £179,000 in 1991."
  An increase in the top rate of tax on those incomes would go a certain way towards cutting back on the £50 billion PSBR.
  That is not the only example. The papers are full of details of indecent rises in incomes. Last Friday, an article in the Evening Standard, headed "The TV millionaires",
  said:
  "Bonanza payout will make moguls seriously rich men. Greg Dyke, the man who saved TV-am with Roland Rat, is set to collect a £5 million-plus jackpot for staying with London Weekend Television."
  That article went on to mention another dozen people who would receive such payouts.
  Why do not the Government tackle the problem and tax such people properly? They are the people who can pay. Old-age pensioners cannot afford to pay. We all know why. The Government do not care a fig about old-age pensioners. Back-Bench Tories complain consistently about the measure, but did any of them say that they would not support the Government? I have been in the Chamber for nearly all the debate, and so far only one Conservative Member—all credit to him—has said that he will not support the Government.
  The Government have got it all wrong. I can see my Deputy Chief Whip glaring at me, so I had better finish what I am saying. However, I have a warning for the Government. This measure is like the poll tax. It will not come into operation until 1994 and even then it will only be at half cock. It will come fully into operation in 1995. If the Tories have any sense, those on the Front Bench will have organised a dozen Back Benchers to vote against the measure, to make sure that it never reaches the statute book. They would then be able to wring their hands in horror, but they would have saved the Tory party from ignominious defeat at the next general election.
  This is like a running poll tax and when it comes into operation, in 1994–95, the Conservative party may be thinking of another general election. That is great for the Labour party, but I am speaking for the country and, for the country, I want the measure to be defeated. If any Tory Members have any guts, it will be defeated.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: The formal wording of the Finance Bill—that domestic fuel "shall cease to be zero-rated for the purposes of charging value added tax on any supply, acquisition or importation"
  —belies the very practical effect that the measure will have on those whom it will hit the hardest. Hon. Members on both

  583
  sides of the House, but particularly Labour Members, have spoken eloquently about the effect that it will have on their constituents. My postbag bears witness to the many representations that I have received from constituents in Hornsey and Wood Green, particularly pensioners, who do not know how they will afford the extra fuel costs, and who anticipate having to choose between heating their homes or paying for other necessities such as food.
  It is axiomatic that an increase in fuel costs will result in colder homes for poorer families, who spend more of their budgets on fuel than others. Other hon. Members have quoted the estimate of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that families in the poorest 10 per cent. of the population spend 13·25 per cent. of their budgets on fuel, compared to those in the richest decile, who spend only 3·46 per cent. of their budgets on fuel. In the face of those figures, the Government's vague promises of compensation for poorer families are meaningless.
  Mr. Nigel Evans:What advice did the hon. Lady give the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Labour was last in power? Electricity prices rose by 30 per cent., but no assistance was given to the less well-off.
  9.15 pm
  Mrs. Roche: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Chamber: I am glad that he has taken the time to visit us. However, I should be rather more interested to learn what he put in his election address to his constituents.
  According to Winter Action on Cold Homes, only 13 per cent. of the 7 million households who rely on social security benefits for most of their income have energy-efficient homes. Nearly 50 per cent. have no central heating, fewer than 50 per cent. have any draught proofing and only one third have adequate loft insulation. Young people will constitute one of the prime targets of the legislation. All the medical evidence suggests that cold rooms—especially cold bedrooms—increase the risk of lower respiratory tract illness in children; and, as we all know now, that is particularly dangerous during the first year of a child's life.
  As Margaret and Arthur Wynn say in their book "Prevention of Handicap and the Health of Women",
  "Every year infant mortality in Britain goes down in the summer and up in the winter … Britain suffers from what has been described as a winter massacre of the innocents … If a baby's body temperature is lowered resistance to disease is reduced. Lowered body temperature, or hypothermia, is a major cause of infant death particularly of low birthweight babies during their first days or weeks of life."
  What if there is a massacre of the innocents now? Every year, more children die in the winter; 200 more infants under one-year-old died during the winter quarter of 1991 than during the summer quarter of the same year. In those circumstances, where will the poorest families in our country find themselves? The only way in which they will be able to reduce their budgets will be to turn off the heating.
  Although there has been a significant decrease in the number of gas and electricity disconnections over the past few years, that trend has been accompanied by a substantial increase in the number of pre-payment meters, which allow customers effectively to disconnect themselves if they are short of money. That has been confirmed by a recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which found that indebted families were
  "having to reduce their fuel comsumption … in order to buy other essentials or to avoid further debt."
  584
  How much harder and starker will be the choice presented to families if this measure is passed?
  It is not inevitable that more children will die in winter. In Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden, there is now no seasonal swing in the number of infant deaths, despite the more severe and longer-lasting winters. All the evidence shows that what happens in the first year of life is important, affecting respiratory and other diseases in later years. Any visit to a local hospital will show that treatment of such illnesses in middle and old age places a grave burden on our national health service.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer did the country a great disservice in proposing this measure. I hope that if Conservative Members do not have their consciences to guide them, they will at least be guided by Thursday's ballot boxes and vote against the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I never thought that we would see the day when, once again, the Government would put the boot into our elderly people.
  Does the Minister know the cost of a bag of coal, a gallon of paraffin or a bottle of Calor gas? I do, because I have lived in such circumstances, and my constituents still do. It is abysmal for the Government to propose a 17·5 per cent. VAT rate on fuel: they do not know what our people are suffering. Unemployment is at 3 million, and more than 9 million elderly, sick and disabled people have had their incomes savagely reduced by a pitiless Government. We have suffered for 14 years under a cold-hearted and cruel Government. This provision will cause great harm to the elderly. The Government are inflicting euthanasia upon them. That is how the Government intend to cut the bills: kill the elderly behind their front doors by making sure that they cannot afford to heat and eat.
  For 14 years, the Government have mismanaged the economy. They have plundered our resources and sold the family silver. Now they expect elderly people to burn their furniture to give them a bit of heat. That is the level to which the Government have sunk.
  I have worked with charitable organisations for years and years. The Government are putting more and more pressure on voluntary organisations to do what the Government ought to do: look after the elderly and the disabled and ensure that the unemployed can afford to heat and eat. Conservative Members ought to put an end to this savage, retrograde step by voting with us in the Lobby. I hope that Tory Members will have the guts to come into the Lobby with us and stop this imposition of 17·5 per cent. VAT on fuel and power now. I hope that they will show that they care for our elderly people.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: There spoke the authentic voice of the British people. [Laughter.] There is no cause for Conservative Members to laugh at the hardship they are forcing on the British people through this provision, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) spoke from the heart, on behalf of the people he represents.
  We have heard argument after argument against the imposition of VAT on fuel and power. Hon. Members know that it is cynical, that it is a betrayal of promises to the electorate, that it is unfair and that it is especially damaging to the most vulnerable. Most powerful in their persuasiveness have been the speeches of my hon. Friends who spelt out how VAT on fuel and power will hit the

  585
  poorest, the elderly, charities and families on average incomes who are worried about their living costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said that it will hit people with disabilities.
  We have also heard persuasive arguments for voting against VAT on fuel and power from Conservative Members, led by the courageous speech of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). Remember what he said about the Chancellor's Budget imposition of VAT on fuel and power. He said that it was a very serious error of judgment. How right he was.
  Concern was also expressed by the hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Bristol North-West (Mr. Stern) for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who said that it would cause huge distress. Those hon. Members who are sitting on the Bench behind the Treasury Bench know, too, that this provision is not right because, day in, day out, the electorate have told them that it is not right.
  Another persuasive argument against the imposition of VAT relates to the difficulties that the Government have had in cajoling enough people to speak in the debate—it is significant that they ran out of speakers before the allotted time—and the feebleness of the arguments of those who spoke in favour of this provision.
  Only one Conservative Member spoke unequivocally in favour of it—the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan). I hope that he will be suitably rewarded by the Government and that he will be given responsibility in his future career for implementing this provision, of which he is so much in favour. No other Conservative Member was unequivocally in favour of it, because, like the proverbial turkeys, it must be bad enough being expected to vote for Christmas without being asked to sharpen the knife as well. That is what the Conservative Members who spoke in favour of this provision were being asked to do.
  It must also be difficult for those who sit on the Treasury Bench. They know that their colleagues behind them grow more impatient by the hour for a Government reshuffle. They must be on the horns of a dilemma. It must be difficult for them to decide whether preferment will follow loyal defence of a provision that they know to be politically disastrous or whether it would be preferable to paddle some distance away from the Chancellor, lest he drag them down as well.
  I listened to the Chief Secretary with care for any sign that he had taken the "bloody nose" message from the electorate or even from the Prime Minister. His eye-rolling ebullience makes him a less than plausible candidate for a role as someone who is listening to anybody, least of all the electorate. His inability to listen and learn was confirmed, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) said, by his speech, in which he trotted out the stock advocacy of this punitive proposal to extend VAT.
  The Government claim that the proposal is necessary for the country because it will bring in lots of money—never mind the people who will have to pay it—and will benefit the environment because it will cut consumption and therefore will not bring in quite so much extra money after all.
  586
  The Chief Secretary argues that the proposal does not break Government promises because, when they said in the general election:
  "We have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT",
  they meant it, but now they have the alibi that they have made a bigger mess of the economy and public finances than even they anticipated, so that is all right now, isn't it? That was the gist of the Chief Secretary's argument.
  How shabbily that stood in comparison with the courageous words of the hon. Member for Corby, who had the integrity to say that he would keep his election promises by voting against extending VAT to fuel.
  The message of last Thursday from people up and down the country as well as in Newbury was that, contrary to what the Chief Secretary claimed, the proposal is not all right at all—it is all wrong.
  The Chief Secretary failed to understand, as the Government fail to understand, that the electorate were driven to bloody-nosed fury last Thursday not only by the VAT proposals, although they are bad enough, but by the shameless arrogance with which, time and again, the Government break promises, shift direction and always shuffle responsibility off on to somebody else, and never apologise or accept the blame for anything. They treat the British people with utter contempt, and the message of Newbury and of the county council elections is that people have had enough and want the Conservatives out.
  People are not fooled into believing that the Government are doing all this for the sake of the environment. My hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Mr. Barron) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) did a comprehensive demolition job on that claim. People know that, if the Government were interested in conserving energy, they would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said, spend money on insulating pensioners' homes rather than inflating their fuel bills.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: In its policy document "Looking to the Future", Labour states that a future Labour Government would use the taxation system to protect the environment. What taxes would the hon. Gentleman introduce to protect the environment?
  Mr. Smith: We favour, for example, incentives to industry to act in the environmentally responsible way. We would not load a burden on the poorest, the elderly and the most disabled people in this country and claim that it had something to do with the environment when really it is just a means of closing the hole in the public sector finances, for which the Government, because of their economic failures, are responsible.
  If the Government really cared about the environment, they would take practical measures to generate jobs, as well as save energy. Labour's proposed home energy efficiency scheme would reduce carbon dioxide by three times as much as the Government claim it will be reduced by the imposition of VAT on fuel.
  If the purpose of the proposal really was to reduce energy consumption, the Government would not be extending VAT to standing charges, to rental charges for meters or to charges for connections, none of which has anything to do with consumption. The Government's policy has nothing to do with saving energy and everything to do with the desperate drive for money to narrow the yawning deficit in Government finances—the excess debt

  587
  to which my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) referred—and they do not care who they hit in the process.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the effects on charities. The Charities Tax Reform Group, representing more than 300 charities, has stated the position with stark clarity. In a letter to me on 18 March, Adrian Randall, the chairman of the group, said:
  "The imposition of VAT on fuel and power will cost CTRG'S members £27 million per annum and charities which provide residential care for elderly or disabled people will be hit the hardest. Unlike ordinary households, these charities are unable to reduce their heating in order to compensate for the increase in fuel prices … Charities again find themselves in a uniquely disadvantaged position because unlike local authorities and commercial organisations, they are unable to recover VAT."
  The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir. J. Hannam) made similar points.
  9.30 pm
  The Conservative party is fond of proclaiming its support for charities and their important work. This evening provides the opportunity for Conservative Members to demonstrate that support in the only way that really matters here—by voting for amendment No. 5, which would exempt charities from the charge. After all, when farmers were disadvantaged by the VAT regime, the Government introduced the flat rate VAT scheme which enabled farmers to make a claim against their input VAT. If the Government can make exceptions for farmers, they can do so for charities. If Conservative Members do not vote for amendment No. 5, they will simply confirm the belief that Conservatives stand only for vested interests.
  Another important matter, which has received less attention in our debate, is the effect on small businesses, especially the smallest and newest businesses. The effect will be dire. On the basis of Department of Employment figures, more than 1 million businesses are below the VAT threshold. Many of those are run from home when starting off and do not pay VAT on their fuel at present if the supplies are less than 40 per cent. of the household total.
  For such businesses, the VAT increase will bang up costs and will either be passed on to customers or will come straight out of profits. For many, it will mean the difference between staying afloat and joining the more than 1,200 a week who are going bankrupt under this Government. So much for the Conservatives as the friends of small business. Those businesses will have every reason to conclude that today's Tory party cares only for those who donate millions to Conservative party funds or those who bolster the personal incomes of ex-Cabinet Ministers on their boards.
  What also worries the country is the danger that the misuse of VAT to bail out the Government's bad housekeeping will set a precedent for other extensions of VAT. After all, if the Conservatives could not be believed when they said at the general election that they would not increase or extend VAT, how can people believe them when they say that again now? They did not break only one promise when they introduced this proposal; they broke their whole credibility as a Government. People know, as they showed last Thursday, that they can never ever trust the Conservatives again.
  In practice, the extension of VAT puts at risk the very principle of Britain's right to levy a zero rate of VAT on essentials. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and others pointed out, apart from the fact that,
  588
  under the European Community VAT agreement, it would be impossible for Britain to restore fuel to zero rating, if the Government get their way tonight and surrender the present position, what sort of credibility could they have in the negotiations to keep the zero rate when it comes up for review at the end of 1996?
  Through the unilateral abandonment of a key zero rate on essentials, Ministers are sending themselves naked into the negotiating chamber as regards the continuation of zero rating. This is a precedent that will be used against them. I know, not least from the extensive debates on Maastricht, that many Conservative Members genuinely care about the maintenance of zero rating. I can only say to them, "If you really want to keep it, join us in the Division Lobby tonight."
  The worst thing of all is that VAT on gas, electricity, coal and central heating oil would hit hardest those on the lowest incomes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Mr. Sheldon) has explained to the House on many occasions, VAT in general is a potentially highly regressive tax. When it was introduced, a measure of progressivity was retained by the zero rating of food, children's clothing, fuel and other necessities.
  If zero rating is abandoned, as the Government now propose, VAT will be made more regressive overall and more unfair to those on the lowest incomes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) pointed out, those are the very people who have seen the whole tax system skewed against them during 14 years of Conservative government, while the Nadirs of this world are pampered by the Government's organisation of their tax affairs. There can be no clearer demonstration that, when it comes to taxation, the Government operate one rule for the rich and a completely different rule for the majority of the country and for the poorest people of all.
  As my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Coventry, North-East pointed out to good effect, academic studies by the social policy unit at York have shown just how unfair the proposal is. Similarly, the department of applied economics at Cambridge has calculated that the average impact on the poorest tenth of the population will be no less than seven times greater in relation to income than it is on the richest tenth.
  Talk of averages and statistics, damning though they are, comes nowhere near capturing the despair of the poorest families and pensioners who will be hit by the measure. My hon. Friends—and, I am sure, some Conservative Members—will be familiar with the pensioner who comes to their advice surgery clutching the lined piece of writing paper with meagre outgoings down one side and even more meagre income down the other, and who says, "What am I to do? I cannot make ends meet. I cannot afford to feed myself properly."
  Those are people whose days are spent worrying about how to pay for their heating and how on earth to pay their water rates. They are people who can never afford to buy a new coat. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, they are people who find that the small increase in their pension never covers the increases in the costs they face.
  We are talking about men and women who have worked, scrimped, saved and struggled all their lives for a future better than this. What do the Government do to them? They put up their heating bills—in a country where

  589
  winter deaths among the elderly already exceed deaths in the summer months by 40,000 a year, and where hundreds of pensioners' deaths are directly attributable to hypothermia.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said, there is also a massacre of the innocents, in the number of babies dying of the cold in this country. Against the background of the social conditions in Britain today for which the Government have been responsible, this measure is nothing short of obscene.
  The Government say—we have heard it again today —that they will compensate poor people for the effect of the increases. No one believes that they will compensate them adequately or in full because, when challenged by Opposition Members, Ministers have repeatedly refused point blank to give any assurance that there will be full compensation.
  So even the poorest, even the most elderly, even the most disabled, will not be compensated in full. But the Government say that they will give those people something. Does it not occur to Ministers that, if they expected the people to be persuaded, reassured even, by that, they should have spelt out at the Dispatch Box before asking us to vote on the measure precisely how the compensation is to work? Do they not understand that their intentions will not, and after all that they have done simply cannot, be taken on trust?
  The debate tonight could not be more timely. Time and time again in the past few days, we have heard Cabinet Ministers repeat the Prime Minister's claim that somehow the Conservatives will now start listening to what the electorate has been telling them. All that I can say is that they will be judged by their actions, not their words. It is no good Back Benchers voicing all the anxiety in the world tonight unless they are in the Lobby to vote against the measures which they rightly protest are doing so much damage.
  Conservative Members have the chance this evening in the Lobby to show how far they have heard and understood what the British people have been saying. They have the chance to show whether they will act on it. If the Government will not listen to us, they must surely listen to their own poor bloodied infantry, the ones who got the bloody noses on the doorsteps of the no longer Tory shires.
  They must surely listen to Essex Conservative Councillor Kevin Blake, who was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe:
  "We went into the last election telling people not to vote Labour because they would put up taxes and what happens —the government put up Vat. We need a leadership which does what it says and we need it badly. Otherwise what happened last week will just be the start."
  Of course it will just be the start. It will be the start of further political disaster and betrayal of the British people as the first instalment of the increase comes into effect next year, and the full double whammy of 17·5 per cent. comes in the year after.
  Conservative Members know from their party members, their hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Corby exactly what is going on. They should remember his words in the debate this evening. He said:
  "I personally feel ashamed that my party could bring such a proposal as this to the House."
  What a damning indictment from one of their own
  590
  colleagues.
  Conservative Members know, as we know, that the electorate reject this punitive imposition of VAT. The measure is desperately unfair, has nothing to do with the environment, and is a betrayal of Conservative general election promises. I invite Conservative Members to keep faith with those who elected them, and join us tonight in voting down this despicable measure.
  The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): This has been an important and, indeed, a real debate. I shall do my best to respond to those who have taken the trouble to speak in the debate from my party as well as from other parties.
  I say at the start, because it has not always been apparent from speeches by Opposition Members, that no one, either on the Government side of the House or on the Opposition side, likes increasing taxes. One of my most distinguished predecessors as Paymaster General, Edmund Burke, was quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) as saying that to tax and to please is given to no man. His successor today certainly understands the force of that. Nobody likes the necessity—and it is a necessity—of raising more revenue. But it is a necessity, which we as the Government must face —[Interruption.] Labour Members can dismiss it if they like and can sail over it, but we must face up to it in the interests of sound finance.
  As the Committee knows and as the Chancellor spelled out at the start, the clause has two purposes, to raise—
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Sir John Cope: I will not give way at this stage.
  Mr. Graham: The right hon. Gentleman is scared.
  9.45 pm
  Sir John Cope: No, not of the hon. Gentleman.
  As I was saying, it has two purposes—the raising of revenue and the reduction of the use of fuel. The clause helps us to achieve our objectives in both those areas.
  Mr. Connarty rose—
  Sir John Cope: No, I will not give way at the moment.
  Anyone who wishes to oppose the clause—clearly, some do—must explain whether they disagree with the objectives; few have done that, although some have skated over it. If they agree with the objectives, they must say how else they would achieve them.
  Mr. Barron rose—
  Sir John Cope: No, I will not give way just now.
  Mr. William Powell rose—
  Sir John Cope: I am about to refer to my hon. Friend's speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) recognised the dilemma and said that he would increase income tax. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I must tell him that I do not agree with it. Nor does my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), and nor do the majority of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend understand that the issue in the debate is not whether taxes have to be raised—that is clear in the light of the PSBR requirement—but why the Government have chosen this

  591
  particular tax, instead of all the other options, as the most appropriate one? Frankly, a convincing answer has not been given to that question.
  Sir John Cope: I was pointing out that my hon. Friend's alternative is income tax, and I do not agree with him, for the reasons to which I shall come.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Sir John Cope: I will not give way at this stage, because I want to make progress with my speech. I shall not do that if I keep giving way.
  Mr. Dicks rose—
  Sir John Cope: I shall come shortly to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
  It is important that, in raising this revenue, we do so without damaging—
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Sir John Cope: No, I told the hon. Gentleman a moment ago that I would not give way.
  It is important that we do so without damaging incentives, and that is why I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby. It is also important that we do it without damaging the prospects for recovery—that is, without damaging industry and industrial competitiveness. That is not only important to industry—and, of course, it is important to industry—and it is not only important to the Government's finances, which it clearly is. It is also important to people because it is about employment, recovery and jobs. That is why we had to choose a way of raising revenue which did not damage industry and industrial competitiveness. To have done otherwise would have given away all those objectives.
  Mr. Dicks: My right hon. Friend keeps saying that the only alternative would have been to have put up taxes. I gave an alternative in my speech. I said remove the subsidy to the arts, which is worth about £600 million, and stop overseas aid, which is running at £1·6 billion. That works out to exactly the figure that my right hon. Friend is trying to save by this silly move.
  Sir John Cope: We shall certainly have to restrain spending as well as raise taxes. I would not agree with the aspects of public expenditure to which my hon. Friend drew attention in his speech and in that intervention. It would be difficult to detect any party in the House that disagrees with the Rio objectives, which are part of the reason for the introduction of clause 42.
  At the time of the Rio summit, the then Labour spokesman on the environment, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said:
  "more could have been achieved and British Ministers could have played a more positive role, particularly in respect of global warming"—[Official Report, 25 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 409.]
  I must tell the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) that that relates to greenhouse gases rather than the hole in the ozone layer.
  The main Labour document, "Agenda for Change", published since the election, contains the claim:
  "The Conservatives dragged their feet in every way they could at the Rio summit."
  The Opposition wanted us to go further on Rio and yet they oppose the extension of VAT, which will help to
  592
  achieve one of the Rio targets. They should face up to those targets and accept the measures that are necessary to achieve them, if that is what they want.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir John Cope: Not for the moment.
  In February, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) told the House that Labour should consider increasing VAT on "environmentally unfriendly products". What on earth he meant by that, if not the type of measure that we have put before the House, I am not sure. The Liberal party is also keen on the Rio objectives.
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir John Cope: Not at the moment. I shall come to the hon. Lady's speech later.
  We are not suggesting that taxation should be the only weapon for the achievement of the Rio objectives. There are a range of such weapons, but, in common with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, we believe that taxation is one part of the right strategy. If we are to avoid damaging industrial competitiveness, we must look to the domestic sector to conserve energy. There is no doubt that that is why Friends of the Earth, among others, welcomed our decision. It recognised that that decision represents a valid, green objective.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Sir John Cope: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must make more progress.
  Hon. Members will be aware of the discussions in the European Community about the possibility of imposing a carbon/energy tax. The United Kingdom is not yet convinced that such a tax is either necessary or appropriate. I know that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) believes that we should agree only to a European tax—presumably he had the carbon/energy tax or some version of it in mind. A large part of the burden of that tax would fall on industry and, unless a great deal of care was taken, it would have an adverse effect on competitiveness, which is something we wish to avoid.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I suspect that his hon. Friends, in common with mine, have heard all this before. If the Conservative party has listened to what the people said last Thursday, the Committee and the country want to know what has changed in terms of what the Government proposed in the Budget and what they are proposing today.
  Sir John Cope: If the hon. Gentleman wants to hear more of what I have to say, he should not interrupt me with such a useless intervention.
  We all understand that, when we introduce the tax, we must protect the most vulnerable. That was acknowledged by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech and, since, by me and umpteen colleagues. That commitment was given from the start and has been mentioned many times in the debate.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Sir John Cope: No, I shall not give way as I am about to turn to a subject about which I have been asked: the way in which we are to protect the most vulnerable. My right

  593
  hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his Budget speech—and the point has been repeated and expanded since—that extra help will be given to those on income-related benefits, including poorer pensioners. That extra help will be provided before April 1994 when we come to the first stage of the tax.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens rose—
  Mr. Stern rose—
  Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) did not speak in the debate, so I shall proceed with my remarks, and return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) in a moment.
  The help will be given to 8 million households on income support, family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Of course, we include in that list the cold weather payments.
  Mrs. Ewing: Does the Paymaster General accept that, on the Department of Social Security's own figures, in 1989, 25 per cent. of people entitled to income support did not take it up and 43 per cent. of people entitled to other benefits did not take them up? The critical factor is ensuring that—in the Government's own words—we target the people who most need it. My next question is of paramount importance: what action are the Government taking to ensure that the people on the margins of poverty can be given assistance to deal with higher fuel bills which include VAT on standing charges?
  Sir John Cope: I shall return later to cold weather payments and standing charges. The hon. Lady is right to say that many pensioners and others who are entitled to benefits do not take them up. However, the vast majority of benefits are received by the people who require them. It is extremely important that all of us encourage people to take up the benefits to which they are entitled—otherwise, how can we help them? If we make benefits available but people do not take them up, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to help those people.
  Mr. Stern rose—
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Sir John Cope: I shall not give way, as I have reached a point in my speech about which many hon. Members have expressed opinions and I wish to be precise and careful. I have been asked: what about pensioners whose income is just above the income support levels? The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked me about that. I wish to make several points, particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington, for Bristol, North-West and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
  The increases in income support rates that we have promised from April 1994 will also knock on to housing benefit, council tax benefits and other benefits available to people who are on low incomes, but live above the income support level. Increased benefit rates will bring more people into entitlement to income-related benefits. That fact, in itself, increases the numbers involved and is part of the reason why I could refer to as many households as I did.
  594
  In addition, the normal annual increases in benefits will, as we made clear, reflect the impact of fuel bills on the retail prices index. Even those who are not involved with any of the income-related benefits will be affected by that part of the increase. Therefore, all pensioners will get RPI-related increases, and special help will also go, and earlier, to those on income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit and so on. Altogether, 1·5 million pensioners who are above the income support level will be helped by those means and that is extremely important.
  Mr. Barron rose—
  Sir John Cope: Of course it is true that we have to, and we will, work on those problems between now and when the benefit ratings are announced in the usual way in the autumn.
  10 pm
  Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all his comments have been based on income levels and that he has said nothing about those people who are forced to live in houses that are hard to heat and who will have increased difficulties as a result of the measures, whatever their level of income?
  Sir John Cope: As my hon. Friend said, the benefits are devoted to people. They are devoted to those who receive benefit now and in future and to whom the increases will be available. Perhaps my hon. Friend can suggest a method of helping people who do not collect the benefit to which they are entitled as that is very difficult. We shall pay extra benefit and extend it to a further 1·5 million pensioner households.
  We shall continue to take account of those matters as we work towards the announcements on the benefit increases in the autumn.
  I was also asked about charities.
  Mr. Marlow: Many people support and understand the logic of taxing fuel consumption, but what about the standing charge, which is purely about making available to people an essential service?
  Sir John Cope: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall deal with the standing charge. It has been suggested that we should not apply VAT to the standing charge, as that would somehow offer help to the most needy. Some of the least well-off gas consumers pay by token meters. Their standing charge is lower and their unit charge is higher. As a result, that suggestion would not help the most needy. They would benefit less than other consumers from zero-rated standing charges. In any case, it is difficult to see how one could divide up a fuel bill and avoid problems.
  On charities, we believe that it is a better principle—as the Budget demonstrates—to give relief on what people give to charities rather than to give relief to charities on the basis of particular patterns of expenditure at home, overseas and on particular goods. However, we have given a large number of VAT reliefs, as hon. Members know, and we shall deal with gift aid and payroll giving improvements later in the Committee.
  The hon. Member for Peckham urged the House to vote for amendment No. 5. Many charities run residential institutions which are businesses in VAT terms and currently benefit from the zero rating of fuel and power because they are domestic concerns and not because they

  595
  are charities. The hon. Lady should notice that residential homes of that character would not benefit from amendment No. 5.
  Mr. Dickens: I have freely to confess that I am one of those wavering on my vote this evening. What will the Minister do about the great in-betweens—those who are considered too rich to receive any benefit yet who are too poor to pay ever-increasing costs?
  Sir John Cope: I did my best to explain to my hon. Friend and to the Committee that, in arranging the benefits, which we must consider in the autumn, we are already committed to extending them to 1·5 million pensioners in addition to those getting income support. We will do that by means of the improvements in income support and by means of the council tax and other benefits, thereby extending the amount of benefits on offer. I am afraid that those who do not claim benefits or are not prepared to claim them are difficult to help. If my hon. Friend can think of a way of helping them, he will have to tell us about it, but he did not do so in the debate. It is extremely difficult to know how to arrive at a solution to this.
  No one likes the necessity for this tax, but it is a necessity. We have to face up to the problems of increasing revenue and reducing energy use. The Liberals did not face up to that. They want a European tax: nothing else. The Labour party does not face up to it either: it has never faced up to the public sector borrowing requirement. Opposition Members have not even realised that their problem at the general election was their spending plans, from which they have not since resiled. That is why we said that they would need much higher taxes than we would. We were right. What is more, we were believed, because of Labour's spending plans.
  We all know that our warnings would have been doubly fulfilled since the election, given the way in which the world and European economies have gone. The Conservatives stand above all for taking difficult decisions and protecting the weak from them. That is what we are doing tonight—the ladder and the safety net. Above all, Conservatives stand for sound finance. It is essential, and the clause will help to achieve it.
  Ms Harman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 23, line 40, after 'shall', insert
  'except for supplies for charity use'. —(Mr. Andrew Smith.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 286, Noes 297.

  Division No. 259]

  [10.07 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Battle, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainger, Nick

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beggs, Roy

  Allen, Graham

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Alton, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Benton, Joe

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Austin-Walker, John

  Betts, Clive

  Barnes, Harry

  Blair, Tony

  Barron, Kevin

  Blunkett, David

  596

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boyes, Roland

  Gunnell, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hain, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hall, Mike

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hanson, David

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

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Byers, Stephen

  Henderson, Doug

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hoey, Kate

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cann, Jamie

  Home Robertson, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hume, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hutton, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Cryer, Bob

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jo well, Tessa

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dewar, Donald

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dixon, Don

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dowd, Jim

  Leighton, Ron

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lewis, Terry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eastham, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Enright, Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Etherington, Bill

  Loyden, Eddie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McAllion, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCartney, Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Fisher, Mark

  Macdonald, Calum

  Flynn, Paul

  McFall, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McGrady, Eddie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McKelvey, William

  Foulkes, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fraser, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maclennan, Robert

  Galbraith, Sam

  McMaster, Gordon

  Galloway, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gapes, Mike

  Madden, Max

  Garrett, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mallon, Seamus

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gould, Bryan

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Graham, Thomas

  Martlew, Eric

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Meacher, Michael

  597

  Michael, Alun

  Rowlands, Ted

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Salmond, Alex

  Milburn, Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Short, Clare

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Simpson, Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nahawe)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

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

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Paul

  Spearing, Nigel

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stott, Roger

  Olner, William

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Parry, Robert

  Tipping, Paddy

  Patchett, Terry

  Turner, Dennis

  Pendry, Tom

  Tyler, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Vaz. Keith

  Pike, Peter L.

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pope, Greg

  Wallace, James

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Walley, Joan

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Watson, Mike

  Prescott John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Purchase, Ken

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wilson, Brian

  Raynsford, Nick

  Winnick, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Rendel, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Richardson, Jo

  Worthington, Tony

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rooney, Terry

  Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. John Spellar.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ancram, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Ashby, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker. Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Butcher, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Butler, Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bates, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chapman, Sydney

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, Mr

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clappison, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  598

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howarth, Alan (Sfrar'rd-on-A.)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell. Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jack, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Elletson, Harold

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

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knox, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Faber, David

  Legg, Barry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field. Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Madel, David

  Gallie, Phil

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Malone, Gerald

  Garnier, Edward

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gorst, John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Needham, Richard

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hendry, Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Paice, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patnick, Irvine

  599

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Sweeney, Walter

  Pawsey, James

  Sykes, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Redwood, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Richards, Rod

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

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

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tracey, Richard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Sackville, Tom

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Walden, George

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watts, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whitney, Ray

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Wolfson, Mark

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stephen, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Allan

  Mr. David Lighbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Streeter, Gary

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 295, Noes 285

  Division No. 260]

  [10.23 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ancram, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Ashby, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Butcher, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Butler, Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bates, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Churchill, Mr

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clappison, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Booth, Hartley

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  600

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Eggar, Tim

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

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evennett, David

  Legg, Barry

  Faber, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Malone, Gerald

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gorst, John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Needham, Richard

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hendry, Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Paice, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  601

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sykes, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Redwood, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Thomason, Roy

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thurnham, Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

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

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Trend, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sackville, Tom

  Viggers, Peter

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waller, Gary

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shersby, Michael

  Watts, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whitney, Ray

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Wolfson, Mark

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stephen, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Sumberg, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Burden, Richard

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, Stephen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Alton, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cann, Jamie

  Ashton, Joe

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beggs, Roy

  Cohen, Harry

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Connarty, Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Corbett, Robin

  Benton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Cousins, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, Bob

  Blair, Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Blunkett, David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Boateng, Paul

  Dafis, Cynog

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boyes, Roland

  Darling, Alistair

  Bradley, Keith

  Davidson, Ian

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  602

  Denham, John

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dixon, Don

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dowd, Jim

  Leighton, Ron

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lewis, Terry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eastham, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Enright, Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Etherington, Bill

  Loyden, Eddie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McAllion, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCartney, Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Fisher, Mark

  Macdonald, Calum

  Flynn, Paul

  McFall, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McGrady, Eddie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McKelvey, William

  Foulkes, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fraser, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Fyfe. Maria

  Maclennan, Robert

  Galbraith, Sam

  McMaster, Gordon

  Galloway, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gapes, Mike

  Madden, Max

  Garrett, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mallon, Seamus

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gould, Bryan

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Graham, Thomas

  Martlew, Eric

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Meacher, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michael, Alun

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gunnell, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Hain, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Hall, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Harvey, Nick

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morley, Elliot

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate

  Mullin. Chris

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Murphy, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Olner, William

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Parry, Robert

  Hume, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hutton, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pope, Greg

  Jamieson, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Janner, Greville

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jowell, Tessa

  Radice, Giles

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Randall, Stuart

  Keen, Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Reid, Dr John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rendel, David

  603

  Richardson, Jo

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Turner, Dennis

  Rogers, Allan

  Tyler, Paul

  Rooker, Jeff

  Vaz, Keith

  Rooney, Terry

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wallace, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walley, Joan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watson, Mike

  Sheerman, Barry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Short, Clare

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Simpson, Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

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

  Winnick, David

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

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wise, Audrey

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. John Spellar.

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Straw, Jack

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Committee report progress.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  To sit again tomorrow.

  National Health Service
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move,
  That the National Health Service (Determination of Districts) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 574), dated 9th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be revoked.
  I understand that with this it will be convenient discuss at the same time the following motions:
  That the National Health Service (District Health Authorities) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 572), dated 9th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be revoked.
  That the National Health Service (Determination of Regions) Amendment Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 571), dated 9th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be revoked.
  We are about to debate orders that relate to the reorganisation of the English national health service. Frankly, the orders do not do justice to the reorganisation proposed by the Government. The Government are reorganising the NHS by stealth and by the back door. The Minister is the Lord Hanson of the national health service. Merger mania, takeovers, corporate raids on funds, asset-stripping, sackings of staff, profit-taking, commercialisation and privatisation are all contained not only in these orders, but in previous orders which have been passed by the House without parliamentary or public scrutiny.
  In 1982, the Government introduced proposals for the reorganisation of district health authorities. They created 192 authorities—[Interruption.]
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The orders are tremendously important. It is impossible to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is saying.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Would hon. Members leaving the Chamber please leave quietly? If any sub-committees are meeting, will they please meet outside.
  Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It is the first time that I have been shouted down in the House before I have got two minutes into my speech. I shall try to provoke Conservative Members a little more as I get further into my speech.
  In 1982, the Government reorganised the district health authorities of England, creating 192 on the basis that the previous 85 were too remote, too large, had no control locally of the delivery of service and showed no signs of being consistent with local democracy and local accountability. Yet 11 years on, the Government are by stealth reversing that policy and are reducing the number to between 85 and 90. With the reorganisation, they are removing much of the public accountability and public participation in local health services. Why is that?
  Why is the Minister reorganising the national health service in this reorganisation that dares not speak its name? Why, with little local consultation and hardly any parliamentary scrutiny, are the Government undertaking the biggest reorganisation of the health service in England since 1982? It is all about the creation and development of a market in the national health service.

  605
  At a time when the Government are causing bed closures, when there are nearly 1 million people on the waiting lists, when prescription charges are rising, when limited lists are being introduced, when student nurses are being made redundant and qualified nurses are being sacked, when GPs are saying that the community care proposals are a shambles and when charities both locally and nationally are paying for life-saving equipment because the national health service cannot afford it, the Under-Secretary is appointing Conservative after Conservative to chairmanships and non-executive positions on the boards.
  The money that is being spent is an absolute scandal —a scandal of major proportions. Let me give the House some indication of the size of the gravy train that the Under-Secretary is driving. Take the hon. Gentleman's own constituency as an example. In Bolton, during 1990–91, £17,100 was available in remuneration for the chair and non-executive members. By 1992, that figure had risen to £49,356. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), who is trying to reduce income support for the unemployed, has presided over an increase from £35,000 to just under £50,000 in remuneration for Conservative appointees on the health authority in his constituency. The Government are introducing income support, using public funds, for Tory party members to run quangos in the national health service.
  Some of my hon. Friends want to speak tonight about the situation in the north-east, which is even more devastating. For example, the Newcastle upon Tyne, expenditure in respect of chairmen and non-executive members has risen from £46,000 to £107,469. In Cumbria, the figure has risen from £15,000 to £48,000; in Gateshead, from £29,000 to £43,000; and in Northumberland, from £31,000 to £63,000.
  One can cite area health authority after area health authority—and that at a time when the Government cannot find the money to pay student nurses finishing their courses and are giving them a certificate with one hand and a UB40 with the other. It is outrageous that the Government are spending these rare resources not on primary health care or care in the NHS but in payments to Tory party members to run the national health service.
  The reorganisation involves centralisation; it is leading to services being planned by people who do not know their own populations and who do not live in their areas. The Minister is creating purchasing giants because he wants to ration care in the national health service. He wants to create offices of health regulation by replacing public health officers and appointing health commissioners, 50 per cent. of whom have no medical qualification whatever. He is replacing qualified medical staff with consultants and accountants whose responsibility is not to prepare and deliver a local health care service on the basis of need, but to ensure that purchasing is the main drive of health care in the regions. There will be no public accountability whatever. The new organisations are to be run exclusively by political appointees. After last Thursday's election debacle, the Government will have hundreds more ex-councillors to appoint to those positions.
  Finally, I want to ask the Under-Secretary about London. He argues that we should have conterminosity
  606
  —the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is surprised that I managed to pronounce that properly—and that the reorganisation is about trying to ensure that districts are amalgamated and that there is a commonality of boundaries with local authorities. Why is it then that, for Kingston, Esher, Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton, there is no conterminosity? The Government have broken it up. They have divided the new health authority between four or five district councils. I believe that the reason is that the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) has an interest in a particular hospital there. He is concerned—
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: No, I will not give way.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Putney obviously wants to ensure that the boundaries suit the Government politically rather than suit the national health service.
  Mr. Taylor rose—
  Mr. McCartney: I know that the hon. Gentleman comes from Esher, but he has an opportunity to put the case in the same way as I am trying to put the case. Perhaps for once he will speak in the House on health service matters and put the case.
  The Government owe it to the House to explain why, in the areas that I have mentioned, they are getting rid of conterminosity and replacing it with politically biased boundaries irrespective of the health care needs of the borough.
  It is absolutely essential that there is more public debate about the proposals. It is clear that the orders that the Government intend in the weeks and months ahead to propose further major reorganisation of district health authorities, uprooting local accountability, destroying the commonality of each community, removing local purchasing and replacing it with big takeovers and mergers. In some areas, local authorities will also lose the opportunity to co-ordinate community care in a rational way.
  Local community health councils will be under threat from the Government when the Government remove the coterminosity of the boundaries as a result of the major changes and takeovers that are taking place. That has already led in many areas to the closure or partial closure of hospitals as big organisations drive down the cost of health care at the expense of services to the local community. I ask my colleagues not only to speak against the orders but to vote against them in the Lobby.
  10.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). When he hits that top C sharp and holds it for 10 minutes it is a marvel of oratory and Conservative Members know that he is destroying whatever case he is trying to put to the House.
  The debate gives me an opportunity to discuss with the House the merits of mergers of health authorities and the benefits that they give to patients and the health service. Most people know about the remarkable changes that have been made on the provider side of the health service.

  607
  Trusts are undoubtedly one of the great success stories of the health service and probably the greatest single radical change since its inception.
  Rather less well known, and perhaps more important, is the new position and role of health authorities as purchasers. Purchasing is a new concept not entirely understood by Opposition Members, as we have just heard, but it is enormously important. In case the hon. Member for Makerfield has not noticed, health authorities will not manage hospitals in future; that will be the duty of trusts. Purchasers will have an entirely new role. They will assess the health needs of their area.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the Minister like to tell us whether this system went live on 1 April and whether, if that is so, almost all the authorities on his list are trying to implement illegal contracts?
  Mr. Sackville: I do not recognise the constitutional validity of what the hon. Lady says. The Opposition are praying against orders to merge health authorities which became effective on 1 April.
  The new merged health authorities will set standards for care in their areas. They will target the resources allocated to them by the regional health authorities. They will demand value for money through the contracts that they set with providers. Lastly, they will monitor quality. But they will also have a wider remit. They will also be the bodies that influence the health agenda in each area. The vision for that was set out in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper. Health authorities will be encouraged to form healthy alliances with other agencies, such as local authorities and voluntary organisations, and even with private sector companies to influence and improve the health of their populations.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: How can the new health authority in Redbridge and Waltham Forest, in my area, improve the health of the people there when it will suffer a £13·5 million cut over the coming five years? The first £2 million cut was implemented this year. That authority, local Members of Parliament and the local public have not been consulted. The Minister talks of a new role for those health authorities. Is this not another way of telling the public that they cannot get the treatment that they need?
  Mr. Sackville: On the contrary: they will be in a position better to marshal the resources at their disposal, for reasons I shall explain. Health authorities now have a formidable brief, so we need to develop and strengthen NHS purchasers.
  Mr. Mike Gapes.: There has been a terrible dispute between Redbridge health authority and the Redbridge health care trust in recent weeks, and only in recent days has the authority taken contracts to the trust. That has resulted in a massive problem financially, including a potential £400,000 deficit for the new trust. Is that some of the co-operation about which the Minister is talking?
  Mr. Sackville: I have no doubt that in many areas there will be certain constructive tension between purchaser and provider, and that is an example of the contracting system. Indeed, it is one of the strengths of the system.
  I shall not delay the House long because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. What are the benefits of mergers? They will play an important part in
  608
  helping larger health authorities to assess and meet the health care needs of the population in the way that they relate to other local bodies, particularly family health services authorities and local authorities.
  A high proportion of district health authority mergers will help to simplify those relationships by, as the hon. Member for Makerfield rightly said, conterminosity, meaning common borders with other agencies. We do not pretend that they will guarantee success, and there will not be common borders in every case, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. Common boundaries can help with the integrated purchasing of primary and secondary care and with the task of commissioning care in the community.
  Larger authorities will have a more stable population on which to assess the needs of their local populations and they will be better prepared for eventualities in those larger areas. They will be in a better position to place contracts for specialised services and special care groups.
  Mergers can offer the prospect of increased purchaser leverage, giving district health authorities more bargaining power and clout in dealing with providers and getting a proper deal for their patients. DHAs must be strong enough to bring the benefits of GP fundholding—which is a whole new factor in the NHS—to all GPs, whether or not they are fund holders, and to their patients. They will enable purchasing authorities to make the best use of human resources. Purchasing will not require large numbers of people, but it will need a critical mass of highly skilled personnel if it is to be properly performed. In the past, DHAs have suffered from the migration of high-quality staff to trusts, but larger authorities will be better placed to attract and retain the best people to do the job.
  Mergers will produce administrative savings and considerable economies of scale, which should be welcome to all hon. Members. By simply reducing the number of contracts, a considerable saving can be achieved. Of the mergers under discussion, that in South West Durham will reduce the number of contracts to be negotiated from 220 to 120. I know that one health authority in the west country has claimed, since merger, to have saved more than £1 million in administrative costs.
  Mr. David Blunkett: How can the Minister argue that merging purchasing authorities saves administrative time and money and is valuable in terms of the patient, when the inevitable thrust of GP fundholding is to break up the purchasing arrangements, the larger contracts and the benefits that can be gained from rationalising and quality of scale, and replace them with small purchasing contracts?
  Mr. Sackville: The virtues of GP fundholding are obvious. If the hon. Gentleman talks to fund holders and their patients, he will discover the benefits that they are receiving as a result of the change in their relationship with providers. There is no doubt that economies of scale will result from eliminating duplicated posts in health authorities that merge.
  Patient benefits can be achieved by linking the planning and development of services with other agencies and by improving the quality of purchasing bodies in order to make them more responsive to local people. The greater pressure on costs will release resources for care. I should

  609
  have thought that, given the new role of health authorities, which will not manage hospitals but will be purchasers, it would be clear that new configurations will be necessary.
  I heard nothing of any substance in the speech of the hon. Member for Makerfield. He attacked the proposed changes and his speech was yet another gratuitous attack
  610
  on the health reforms. It may be indelicate to talk about elections now, but before the general election we heard from the Opposition a litany of gratuitous attacks on the health service, which they sought to denigrate. If they continue with their Pavlovian response of persistent attacks on everything to do with the health reforms, it will be clear that the events of April 1992 have taught them nothing.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Alan Milburn: The Minister spoke at length about coterminosity and it is ironic that we should be debating health authority mergers, because this morning the Local Government Commission published its findings about the future of local government services in County Durham. I am delighted to tell the House that the commission recommended a unitary tier council for Darlington. That will restore control that was stripped from the town in 1974 by the then Conservative Government.
  Nearly 20 years on, we are debating orders that will, once again, take power from Darlington, this time from its other key public service, the NHS. Just as social services and other services that might impact on health care are to be delivered back to the town, the NHS will be taken out of local hands. That decision is not only illogical but it will create a bureaucratic minefield where patients, once again, will be the casualties. That is only one of the many ironies and concerns that have been revealed by the impact and process of the merger of the Darlington and South-West Durham health authorities.
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), I have strenuously opposed the merger from the outset, because we believe it to be a false merger which will do nothing to improve health care in either Darlington or South-West Durham. Our resolve has been strengthened by each twist and turn in the lengthy merger process.
  The merger to create the new South Durham health authority did not arrive on the scene from nowhere on 1 April, but had a lengthy gestation period. It was conceived in secret and delivered by a mixture of manipulation and deceit. Members of Parliament were even denied the chance to debate the merger before it came into being on 1 April—an issue which has already been raised by one of my hon. Friends.
  The saga of South Durham health authority dates back to 25 April last year when the Northern region health authority published proposals for a new set of consortium arrangements to purchase health care. Seven consortium arrangements were to be created covering the 15 district health authorities in the north, including one for South Durham, covering the Darlington and South-West Durham health authority areas.
  Early in March last year I received the first in what was to be a series of leaks from a well-placed source inside the region's NHS, which showed that the new consortiums were envisaged as staging posts to full-blown health authority mergers. My source was able to state which senior managers were to be moved into which posts in order to facilitate the merger. The leaked predictions were to be proved uncannily accurate. The game of management musical chairs involved Darlington's chief executive, Geoff Nichol, and South-West Durham's David Ryan disappearing off the scene to allow a newcomer, Tony Jameson, to take over as chief executive of the joint authorities.
  When the story appeared in the local paper, The Northern Echo, a regional health authority spokesman went out of his way to dismiss the document as pure speculation. He said that the possibility of a merger had not even been discussed. I did not want to leave anything to chance and immediately wrote to the regional health
  612
  authority chairman, Peter Carr—as a good prospective parliamentary candidate should. I received a clear reply from Mr. Carr on 26 March. He said:
  "there is no regionwide blueprint. There is no timetable. Any new consortia management arrangements that are developed would remain accountable to the existing statutory health authorities."
  By the end of the next month, Geoff Nichol and David Ryan had left their posts, but the region's head of communications, Dr. George Forster—a man who will frequently appear in the course of the saga—told the other local paper, the Darlington and Stockton Times:
  "as for merger well it is just not on the agenda".
  In the same newspaper on 23 May, the same Dr. Forster greeted the news that Tony Jameson had arrived in Darlington with a categorical assurance that
  "the new appointment of Mr. Jameson is for the post of district general manager of Darlington. He is not being employed to run the joint purchasing function."
  However, the following week, Dr. Forster had gone strangely quiet. Perhaps that was not surprising as, by that time, Mr. Jameson had been appointed as acting chief executive in South-West Durham as well. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have the highest regard for Mr. Jameson, so when he said in a newspaper interview that
  "the regional health authority has a view that a smaller number of districts in the region is a desirable arrangement",
  naturally we all felt concerned.
  Our concerns were heightened when, in the middle of July, The Northern Echo received a leaked copy of a memorandum written by Mr. Jameson. It informed senior managers and district health authority members that a proposed merger of Darlington and South-West Durham health authorities would be discussed at the regional health authority meeting on 28 July. All that happened before the two districts had had a chance to meet on 22 and 24 July to ask the region to back the merger proposal. Mr. Jameson's memo had blown the regional health authority's cover about there being no blueprint and no timetable.
  It is little wonder that, by that time, the very idea of public consultation was dismissed as an elaborate sham. Ministers connived in a fait accompli to ensure that a merger was forced on Darlington and South-West Durham.
  That view is enforced by an examination of the regional health authority's treatment of the responses that it received. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that a majority of the responses were in favour of the merger.However, he will omit to say that the overwhelming majority of the favourable responses came from NHS organisations. Such is the loyalty to the centre in the NHS nowadays that they could not be expected to rebel.
  Even when dissent was expressed, it was discounted. The regional health authority managed to count a letter from a consultant paediatrician as expressing no comment in overall support or opposition, despite its clear view:
  "I fail to see how the new larger authority will benefit the people … The people wish to keep their own services locally. Travelling for many is not easy. Transport is expensive."
  Others were not consulted at all. Darlington MIND, an important local voluntary organisation providing services for the mentally ill, has never been consulted about the proposed merger and the 2,000 people who signed a petition organised by myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland were counted as one response.

  613
  We are used to health Ministers manipulating the figures. I understand that they have their own interests to serve, but this is statistical jiggery-pokery on a grand scale.
  In the headlong rush towards merger, local views have been trampled underfoot. No doubt the Minister has a defence for the merger and I can guess what it is. He will say that it makes financial sense and that there are administrative savings to be made. That is a bit rich coming from a Government who have managed to treble the number of managers and administrators in the NHS since the introduction of its market reforms. Even if that were true, Mr. Jameson, a notable local authority, said in The Northern Echo on 2 May that changes in administrative numbers will be achieved through redeployment; in other words, redeployment to the provider units. It is a question not of cutting bureaucracy but of moving bureaucrats around. The Minister knows that there will be no major savings.
  The Minister will also say that those who oppose the merger are worrying unnecessarily because changes among purchasers have no impact on the services that the patients receive from providers, yet provider services are already being merged in Darlington, and South-West Durham. Chiropody and speech therapy are merged services. There will be community services opt out across the two districts and, most seriously, there is still a question mark hanging over the future of Bishop Auckland general hospital.
  There is a strong feeling in South-West Durham that the Minister has in mind running down the general hospital to the level of a cottage hospital. That view has been prompted by the long delays in announcing the go-ahead for the phase 3 development, despite the prompting of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland.
  The Minister has a chance to end the speculation tonight by giving the green light to that development. I hope that he will grasp the opportunity with both hands.
  The result is simple. The new South Durham health authority is more remote and less accountable. It has only five non-executive directors, all appointed by the Tory Secretary of State, where there used to be 10. There will be only one joint consultative committee, so weakening links with the voluntary sector. There are doubts about the future of the two community health councils because the regional health authority document indicated that they were safe, but only for the time being.
  I hope that the Minister is listening and that he will take the opportunity of giving a cast-iron guarantee that the future of the two CHCs is safe, regardless of anything else. His failure to do so will leave people in Darlington and South-West Durham with the clear impression that in the new model market NHS the views of local communities count for absolutely nothing.
  The Government have clearly decided to let purchasers go the way of providers, so that takeovers and mergers become the order of the day. The new philosophy seems simple: biggest is best. The latest proposal to emerge from the regional health authority is not just for South Durham health authority or North Durham health authority but for a new purchasing consortium—where have I heard this before?—for the whole of County Durham. Twenty years on, we have gone full circle; we are back to the old area
  614
  health authority structures which were discredited because they were remote, monolithic bureaucracies, out of touch with local people.
  We have a more centralised, less accountable health service than ever before. It is also a more secretive organisation. Yet it would be as well for Ministers to remember that the NHS remains a public service. It belongs to the people. It is not the private property either of unelected bureaucrats or of Conservative Ministers, making decisions over the heads of local people.
  The process of creating a merged South Durham health authority has been a shameful one. It has been undertaken by stealth. It has relied on misrepresentations, false denials and back-door deals. In a town where there is a proud tradition of public services being run locally, there is understandable and genuine anger about how the community in Darlington has been kept in the dark about the future of its NHS.
  It is for those reasons that I ask the Minister not only to rescind the orders but to announce tonight an independent inquiry into the South Durham merger. The people of Darlington and South-West Durham deserve no less.
  11.12 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) said. Like him, I strongly support community health councils. When the debate was held in north Yorkshire about whether the four district health authorities should merge into one purchasing authority, one of the chief concerns was what that would mean for the future of the community health councils. Both the York and Scarborough CHCs do an excellent job of feeding to officials in our hospitals the feelings of local people about their needs in relation to service provision.
  It was only when the Secretary of State for Health made it clear that the community health councils were safe and were not to be merged along with the DHAs that support for the central purchasing authority in north Yorkshire came from the grass roots. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that point.
  I invite the Minister to visit Malton. If he wants to see a fund-holding practice that works in conjunction with a small community hospital, he will see none better than in Malton. The last time I talked about Malton in a health debate someone interrupted to suggest that the hospital would close within six months. That was three or four years ago and the hospital has gone from strength to strength. During the recent local election the usual rumours about the future of the hospital were flying thick and fast. I have made strenuous inquiries and I cannot get a handle on any of these rumours—only a flat denial from the chief executive of the Scarborough health trust that it has any plans to cut services at Malton hospital.
  Apart from seeing the wonderful fund-holding practice and how the hospital works, the Minister, I hope, will come to Mahon to issue a warning to the health trust, just in case it is thinking of curtailing any services. It must think again. Although I fully support the merger of the four district health authorities in north Yorkshire—with the four hospitals now all health trusts, it makes a great deal of sense for north Yorkshire to constitute one purchasing authority—I have been anxious that that

  615
  should not lead to any diminution of funding for each of the trusts. Scarborough health trust is facing a shortfall of ·l million.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Surely not.
  Mr. Greenway: Well, from my discussion with the chairman of the Yorkshire health authority and his officials, it seems to me that the money that once went to Scarborough is going to other health trusts and health districts in the Yorkshire region, most of which, I have to say, are represented by Opposition Members.
  We accept that somebody has to make a strategic judgment about where the resources are needed, but if savings are to be found in the Scarborough health trust, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that the way to find the £1 million savings is by having a really forceful campaign against waste and bureaucracy within the NHS, not a campaign to curtail things like maternity service provision at Malton hospital.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend nodded and I give him the good news that I read in my Yorkshire Post on the train this morning that that is precisely what the chief executive of the Scarborough health trust plans to do, to attack waste and bureaucracy. I put it to my hon. Friend and the House that he has a clear interest in ensuring that we attack bureaucracy, because he wants, as I and every hon. Member should want, to demonstrate that the Government's health reforms lead not to more bureaucrats, administrators and waste, but to more patients being treated. We have had more patients treated in north Yorkshire over the past 12 months under the Government's health reforms than any member of the Opposition thought possible.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) asked why we needed any kind of larger purchasers, and why not leave it to the GP fund holders. There is an obvious answer to that: we still require some authority to take a strategic view of the needs of each area.
  My hon. Friend knows, representing as he does a seat in Lancashire, what a big county north Yorkshire is. Clearly, in some areas, there is scope for asking whether every district hospital needs to provide every medical facility. Do they all need an eye unit, for example, or a cardiothoracic unit, and so on? The answer, obviously, is no, but I ask him to bear in mind that north Yorkshire is a very large county. Travel is difficult. People have long distances to travel already to the district facilities. I hope that he and his officials will bear that in mind when considering the funding requirements of the county.
  To sum up, if we are to launch this attack on waste and bureaucracy, we have to accept that we need more competent, professional people, capable of managing this huge national health service, with all the people that it employs. If by merging health authorities we can cut some of the waste, there can be no argument against agreeing that if we now have four health trusts working successfully in north Yorkshire, there should be one central purchasing authority, subject to the caveat that I have made about taking into account the size of our county. I hope that this will not lead to some changes which, in the long term, we might regret.
  11.18 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: It is not very easy to talk about a reduction from some 200 health authorities to 90 in such a short space of time, so I will confine my remarks to a few general points.
  With boundary commission changes imminent, why were not regional health authorities told to await the decisions on local authority borders? Would not it be more sensible, if we are to merge authorities, for them to be coterminous with local authorities, as the local authorities have now been given community care responsibilities? I cannot see how the Government can expect collaboration across services such as that called for in "Working for Patients", "Care in the Community" and "Health of the Nation", yet miss the opportunity to effect a change to assist that co-operation.
  Then there is the sheer size of merged authorities. The Minister told us in the debate in January that one reason for the changes was that the purchaser would need to take advantage of bulk purchasing power. Did not the Government realise, when they dreamt up their reforms, what would be the logical outcome of the market? Purchasers would need to become bigger and bigger in the face of competition and more and more remote from the community.
  Just over a decade ago, the Government abolished the area health authorities and gave as their reasons for doing so that AHAs were too large to be managed effectively and that authority members were necessarily remote from the patient in the hospital and in the community. They said that what was needed was a pattern of operational authorities similar to single district authorities. Now, we are told that the functions of the authority have changed, with its operations reduced, as it no longer provides services or manages hospitals, so it is no longer viable in its old form.
  However, the strategic role of the authority has not changed. It is still expected to assess and provide for the health needs of the local community and to play a role in enhancing primary care through an ever-more integrated set of relationships with local social services and community health councillors, and in improving its population's health. Most importantly, it is a purchaser of care for the local community.
  In January, the Minister told us that the reason for the mergers was the savings that could be made on administration, which would be worth several hundreds of thousands of pounds over time, but he could not be more precise. I am sure that he could achieve similar savings elsewhere in the NHS if the sole objective were to provide a service without taking into account need and quality of care. As a large majority of the changes have already taken place, will the Minister assure the House that the health authorities will at least be accountable and sensitive to the public health needs of their different communities? One way to ensure that would be to have directly elected health authorities, for which we have been calling for a number of years, instead of what we have now—political appointees.
  11.22 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is a disgrace that a matter of such importance should be debated only because of action by the Opposition parties. However, that is in line with the outrageous behaviour of

  617
  the Government towards the NHS. They have split up the service into non-viable units and made trusts the centrepiece of their policy, when they know that the trusts do not have the money to deliver the services. What is more, they have now produced these orders.
  The system began on 1 April. The Department of Health made no attempt to pass the correct information to any of the services concerned and many of those services do not have the software in their expensive computers to run the contracts that the Secretary of State tells us are the purpose behind the way in which she wants to operate the NHS. It is an outrage that incompetent, overweeningly arrogant behaviour can produce a result that will lead to total chaos and will add enormously to the expense.
  There is a case for the National Audit Office to look at the operation of computers not just in one health authority but throughout the NHS. It is clear that, under the aegis of the Government, many private computer companies are getting away with enormous sums of money under the guise of offering a better contracts system. If the order goes through, retrospectively many health authorities will have to amend their contracts. That will cost them not only time, but an enormous amount of money.
  If the Minister thinks that I am exaggerating, let him break the habit of a lifetime and speak to the people who work in the service. They will tell him time and again that, far from relating to "coterminosity", the order relates only to chaos and incompetence. Let me point out to the Minister that, in Crewe, coterminosity does not relate to
  "the borough of Crewe and Nantwich; the borough of Congleton (except the parishes of Congleton, Hulme Walfield … the district of Vale Royal … Macclesfield … Aston, Dutton, Frodsham"
  and various other areas.
  The Secretary of State, through her minions, is destroying the existing administration of what was one of the best and most cheaply administered health systems in the world—a system that spent only 6 per cent. on administration. Under the present Government, it is not only tripling the number of administrators, but doing so in a grossly incompetent and irresponsible manner. If the people had the opportunity to know what secretive, impossible and unfortunate deals they were doing, they would be taken by the scruff of their necks and thrown out tomorrow.
  I had the unfortunate experience of listening to two of those non-elected gentlemen. They were on a train, explaining how they would rearrange the health service in my area: their plans included building a large, very specialised surgical unit in the north of the country, because it had always been the dream of one of these Conservative party nominations.
  That is what the Government have made of the health service. I know that they will not be ashamed of themselves; but if the Minister seriously thinks that he can do this in secret, he underestimates the House of Commons.
  11.26 pm
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: I support the effective speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). I came into the Chamber expecting a very different performance from the Minister. Earlier today, we were told that the Prime Minister had
  618
  instructed Ministers to act differently—that they were to be less arrogant and to listen more. This evening's display from the Minister demonstrates that, although he may have listened, he has heard nothing. He has heard none of the objections put to him during the process of merging authorities; he has not heard—and, indeed, seemed not to understand when my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) drew attention to it—that 10 May is later than 1 April and that there is a gap of some six weeks within which authorities have been acting without parliamentary approval. Moreover, he clearly had not listened to, or understood, anything about what is going on in the areas that he is now merging.
  Part of my constituency covers part of Wear Valley district council, which was in the South West Durham health authority area. It is a very mixed area: although very rural, it contains a number of industrial villages—or villages that used to be industrial—in which there are severe health problems. It has very little in common with the population covered by the Darlington authority. No member of the health authority now lives remotely near the area that I represent: no member has any contact—through business, through the voluntary sector or in any other way—with my constituents who are now covered by the new authority. I have been unable to discover the voting habits of the people concerned; if they are Tories they are very exceptional in our area, but I am sure that the Minister has spent a long time looking for them.
  The Minister has demonstrated that he knows and understands little of the area's needs. His justifications for merger do not hold up in our area. Financial reasons only justify it, yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, they are undermined by the Government having spent vastly greater sums on the members of these smaller and unaccountable authorities than they did on the members of larger authorities, who were accountable because those authorities were elected.
  Arrogance, lack of attention to democratic procedures and centralisation are the hallmark of this order. It is about time that the Government began to listen to and heard what the electors are saying. If the Minister thinks that we are wrong, why does not he put it to an election?
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Blunkett (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My colleagues and I heard no one on the Conservative Benches object.
  Mr. Sackville: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) shouted no.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Whip shouted no. I clearly heard him. Clear the Lobbies.
  The House having divided: Ayes 187, Noes 235.

  Division No. 261]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ainger, Nick

  Barnes, Harry

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Alton, David

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  619

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Benton, Joe

  Jowell, Tessa

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Keen, Alan

  Blunkett, David

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Boateng, Paul

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Boyes, Roland

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bradley, Keith

  Lewis, Terry

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Burden, Richard

  Loyden, Eddie

  Byers, Stephen

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Callaghan, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Canavan, Dennis

  McCartney, Ian

  Cann, Jamie

  McCrea, Rev William

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Macdonald, Calum

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  McFall, John

  Clelland, David

  McGrady, Eddie

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McKelvey, William

  Cohen, Harry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Connarty, Michael

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Madden, Max

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Mahon, Alice

  Corbett, Robin

  Mandelson, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cryer, Bob

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Martlew, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Maxton, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Michael, Alun

  Davidson, Ian

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Milburn, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Miller, Andrew

  Denham, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Dixon, Don

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dowd, Jim

  Morley, Elliot

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mudie, George

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Murphy, Paul

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Eastham, Ken

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Enright, Derek

  O'Hara, Edward

  Etherington, Bill

  Olner, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Parry, Robert

  Flynn, Paul

  Pendry, Tom

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Pickthall, Colin

  Foulkes, George

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Pope, Greg

  Galbraith, Sam

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Gapes, Mike

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Godsiff, Roger

  Purchase, Ken

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Graham, Thomas

  Raynsford, Nick

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Reid, Dr John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Rendel, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Gunnell, John

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Hall, Mike

  Rogers, Allan

  Hanson, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Heppeil. John

  Rooney, Terry

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Home Robertson, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Short, Clare

  Hoyle, Doug

  Simpson, Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Hutton, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Illsley, Eric

  Spellar, John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Jamieson, David

  Stevenson, George

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Stott, Roger

  Jones. Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  620

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dennis

  Wise, Audrey

  Wallace, James

  Worthington, Tony

  Walley, Joan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watson, Mike

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Alan Meale.

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, Brian

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Amess, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forman, Nigel

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Ashby, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Freeman, Roger

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  French, Douglas

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fry, Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Gale, Roger

  Baldry, Tony

  Gallie, Phil

  Banks. Matthew (Southport)

  Garnier, Edward

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bates, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Batiste, Spencer

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gorst, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Booth, Hartley

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Hague, William

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bowis, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hannam, Sir John

  Brazier, Julian

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Harris, David

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Hawksley, Warren

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butler, Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Robert

  Channon. Rt Hon Paul

  Horam, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Churchill, Mr

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clappison, James

  Hunt. Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Congdon, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Cran, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

  Key, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Knapman, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

  Dover, Den

  Knox, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Elletson, Harold

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lidington, David

  621

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maclean, David

  Spring, Richard

  Madel, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Steen, Anthony

  Mans, Keith

  Stephen, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Sfreeter, Gary

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sweeney, Walter

  Merchant, Piers

  Sykes, John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thomason, Roy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Trend, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Viggers, Peter

  Paice, James

  Walden, George

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Pawsey, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waterson, Nigel

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Watts, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wells, Bowen

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Richards, Rod

  Whitney, Ray

  Riddick, Graham

  Whittingdale, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Willetts. David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wilshire, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Yeo, Tim

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Robert Hughes.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Shersby, Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.

  European Community Documents
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  DISTANCE SELLING
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7151/92, relating to the protection of consumers in respect of contracts negotiated at a distance (distance selling); and supports the Government's view that the draft Directive will need some amendment if it is to be acceptable.

  AGRICULTURE (FRAUD)
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11235/92, relating to European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guarantee Section anti-fraud measures; and supports the Government in its intention to continue to press the Commission to take further measures to safeguard expenditure from the Community budget. —[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Social Security (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
  FIRE SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Fire Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.
  TRAFFIC WARDENS
  That the draft Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.

  MARINE POLLUTION
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.

  JUDGES
  That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (No. 2) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.— [Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in
  consequence of that Act; and

  623

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.— [Mr. Greg Knight.]

  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 17 May, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion moved by Mr. James Arbuthnot on 2nd April relating to Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill not later than half-past Eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after the resumption of those proceedings, whichever is the earlier; and the said proceedings may continue after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Hon. Members: Object

  Juvenile Crime
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be accorded this Adjournment debate on the important subject of law and order, and especially of juvenile crime. I am delighted to see some of my hon. Friends here. It is interesting that no Opposition Member is here to listen to this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is one."] I see that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) has scurried back. Juvenile crime is an important matter, which is of massive public concern.
  To give an idea of the up-to-date nature of the topic, I read from the Daily Mail of Saturday 8 May. The editorial is entitled:
  "Learning lessons from bitter defeat"
  and says:
  "What really concerns people in the country is the seemingly inexorable decline in law and order and the deteriorating education system. They link these two factors—together with the breakdown of the family—to what is perceived to be endemic moral decay."
  More specifically on the subject of juvenile crime, Professor Hoghughi, the director of the Aycliffe centre for children, said in an article on 1 March this year:
  "In nearly 30 years of working with disordered and delinquent young people, I have never seen such a tide of public anxiety about their condition and behaviour. Yet the horrors we see now are nothing to what is coming unless we take fundamental measures with some of our alienated young people."
  The Home Affairs Committee report, Government initiatives on secure training orders—about which we shall no doubt hear from my hon. Friend the Minister in a few minutes—and the comment that I heard from a senior police officer in my constituency to the effect that society has gone soft on punishment all suggest a significant concern about juvenile crime in Britain.
  Statistics in this policy area are notoriously unreliable. We know that about 5,·3 million crimes were committed last year—unfortunately, a record—20 per cent. of which were committed by juveniles between the ages of 10 and 17. Sadly, that means that no less than one third of males will have had at least some form of criminal conviction by the time they reach the age of 31, and 20 per cent. of criminal offenders are under the age of 18. The Association of Chief Police Officers said in its evidence on juvenile crime to the Home Affairs Committee that it felt that, taking into account detection rates and conditional and informal cautioning, juvenile offending had risen by about 54 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years. We know that the peak ages of offending are 15 for girls and 16 or 17 for young men.
  Nevertheless, that is only part of the problem. The main part of the problem, as has been generally recognised, is caused by persistent offenders. It is estimated that I per cent. of 20-year-old offenders are responsible for about 60 per cent. of the crimes committed by that age group. In their evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the chief police officers gave a litany of cases in which young people, seemingly without any idea of law and order or right and wrong, continue to commit crimes with relative impunity. Last year, we heard of a 15-year-old from Leeds who had committed no fewer than 400 offences, stealing cars worth £3 million, without being called before the court in any

  625
  meaningful way. Stourport police in my constituency estimate that, if they could lock up 20 young offenders, they could reduce crime in the area by no less than two thirds.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that, at a public meeting in my constituency on Friday, the police told me that, if they could take 10 young criminals out of the system in one of my areas, they could reduce by half the amount of crime being perpetrated in that area?
  Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
  Sadly, many people perceive the criminal justice system at present as no deterrent; it causes young criminals no particular anxiety. One young criminal, Kevin—that is not his real name—was recently quoted in the Evening Standard as saying:
  "I don't regret being a thief. These have been the best two years of my life"—
  the boy is 16.
  "I'll steal while I can because I enjoy it. I'm addicted to it."
  Next comes the most significant part:
  "It feels fantastic going into a shop taking what you want and knowing nothing can be done to you."
  The reasons behind juvenile crime are very varied: they include degrees of parental control, unrealistic expectations in a society that is possibly over-addicted to advertising and violence on the television—a factor whose importance Dr. Susan Bailey has emphasised. There is also no real peer group pressure on young people to make responsible use of time.
  I welcome initiatives, particularly those involving the police and education authorities—such as the one in Brighton—and social service departments, voluntary agencies, agencies such as Crime Concern, the Citizenship Foundation and police liaison, all working within the community to prevent people from committing crime in the first instance.
  Yet, as the Police Federation has said:
  "While police officers and members of the various social services have striven to find appropriate solutions, the objects of their concerns have gone on offending and formed the well-founded opinion that they have nothing to fear from the law."
  The chief police officers say that too often the diversion of young offenders from custody has been seen as an end in itself rather than a means to an end. The Police Federation has also said:
  "There is an almost Pavlovian reaction to any concept of punishment being restored to the juvenile justice system."
  That attitude has been underpinned by the Criminal Justice Act 1982, the 1988 Green Paper and the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which Lord Chief Justice Taylor called a straitjacket on the discretion of the courts to deal adequately with young offenders.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the frustration encountered by our constituents, the police and, indeed, the courts in coping with persistent young offenders was one of the factors that led to the defeat of so many Conservative candidates in last week's county elections?
  Mr. Coombs: I agree entirely. That is why I started with the quotation from the post-election analysis in the Daily Mail, which backs up my hon. Friend's statement consistently.
  The result of the rehabilitative policy, if I may call it that, is that the use of custodial sentences and other more rigorous forms of punishment as a deterrent for young offenders, which would make them see the difference between right and wrong and have some respect for the law, has declined. Custodial sentences for juveniles have declined by 65 per cent. in the past 10 years from 63,200 to only 17,200. The number of 14 to 16-year-old males receiving custodial sentences between 1981 and 1991 dropped from 5,900 to 1,400.
  Even the use of fines has dropped. The proportion of cases in which fines are used for 14 to 16-year old males who are convicted fell between 1981 and 1991 from 32 per cent. to only 14 per cent. Meanwhile, the use of formal or informal cautions has rocketed. For the same age group, it has increased from 51 per cent. to 71 per cent. of cases. I have even come across 14 cases in which 14 to 17-year-olds have been cautioned even in cases of conspiracy to murder and threats to murder.
  Therefore, it is small wonder that I was told by a senior police officer in my constituency today that he heard one young offender who was well known to the police say, "How many more chances do I get?" That trend has been underpinned, if such is the right word, by section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which does not allow magistrates sufficient leeway to take into account previous convictions. Lord Chief Justice Taylor said:
  "Members of the public may feel that if someone commits 135 offences of a particular kind, it is somewhat strange if judges can only take account of one of them as well as the one they are sentencing on."
  Section 63 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 also removed the option of sending people who were 15 to youth offender institutions.
  What should be done to rectify the problem? Let us be positive, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because that is what the public expect us to be. First, section 63 ought to be reformed so that people of 15 years of age or even younger can be given custodial sentences, and rigorous custodial sentences at that. Secondly, section 29 of the Act ought to be reformed in line with the position in Scotland, where before conviction pre-sentencing reports are prepared which include details of the offender's previous offences. Such reports should be available to the judge or the magistrates.
  I am delighted that the Government are planning secure training places now. The Government should provide a continuum of further penalties for older young offenders in secure accommodation. New guidelines on cautioning are expected. They cannot come too soon.
  The main point that I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House is that the regime for punishment of juvenile offenders must be much stricter than it is at present. There is no doubt that attendance centres are uneven in their availability to magistrates in sentencing young people. They cater for people under 16 for a maximum of 24 hours. I visited an attendance centre in Droitwich recently. Attendance centres are mild in the extreme. They rely on exhortation and a little physical exercise, but sadly, given the cautioning policy, they are now dealing, according to the

  627
  police officers who run them, with much more hardened criminals than used to be the case, so their usefulness is commensurately reduced.
  Community service orders apply for between 40 and 240 hours. Too often I have heard them described—it is also my evidence—as a sort of mild, lukewarm version of the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme. Frequently there are no educational requirements, so that they are not oriented towards the national vocational qualification. Small wonder that 30 per cent. of those who attended them in 1991 breached the orders.
  We know that youth offender institutions have spare capacity, but they must be much more rigorous. It is not sufficient for youngsters to go to those institutions and have only 15 hours of education—the recently recommended Home Office standard. Nor is it enough for young people to go to them to do just five hours a week of physical exercise.
  If those institutions are to be deterrents—if they are to represent a greater constructive deterrence than the short, sharp shock detention regimes of the early 1980s—young people must stay at them far longer than 30 days, which is effectively the minimum, and too often common practice. When they go there, they must find slightly more rigour than those I visited, which would not do much harm to a minor public school.
  If they are to be real deterrents, the prison officers and social workers in them must be told that not only will there be rehabilitation, not only will there be a continuum of education from what was being done in the youth offender institution before release—post-release work is obviously important—but that they must be rigorous and unpleasant, and, as a result, the word must go round in the persistent offending community that they are places one goes to at one's peril and to which one does not want to return in a hurry.
  Having made those proposals for greater rigour in our sentencing regime—at attendance centres, for community service orders and at youth offender institutions—I must point out the appalling fact that, according to the latest figures, only two in every 100 offences result in a criminal conviction. So when criminal convictions are obtained, they must be rigorous and act as a deterrent.
  While I appreciate that the rehabilitation of young offenders will involve understanding, too often that form of understanding has been misread by young people in this country as a means of justifying their position—a justification of why they are offending and therefore an excuse for it. If we take the sort of initiatives that I have outlined, some of which the Government are already taking, we shall make the punishment inherent in the criminal justice regime for young people much more rigorous, so enabling us to restore confidence in the system for the British people as a whole.
  11.57 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): I wish at the outset to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on securing this debate on a very important subject. I underline and endorse the concerns he expressed about juvenile justice.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) for being in their places at this late hour to add their support. I appreciate that my near parliamentary
  628
  neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, has been a stalwart campaigner on the matter, and he conveys the rigour of his commitment to the cause to the House tonight, as he has on behalf of his constituents.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest began by talking about public anxiety over the issue. Much as I have sympathy, as I shall illustrate in practical terms, with much of what he said, juvenile justice is an intensely complex area.
  We should not try to act as apologists for the wrongdoing of the young criminals. Many of them are very young, however, and I know that my hon. Friend would agree that, when one visits the institutions in which they are incarcerated, one realises that they may have suffered from physical or sexual abuse, and that they may not have had a loving relationship with their parents. They may not have received the guidance that would have kept them from their wrongdoing.
  My hon. Friend is right to talk about rigour, but I hope that he will couple that with effectiveness. It is important that we should consider what we are trying to achieve, under whatever rigorous regime we impose. Our ultimate aim must be to communicate to such young people that they should not go back into society and reoffend. The track record of ensuring that reoffending is kept at a suitably low rate has not been good.
  My hon. Friend referred to the difficult issue of statistics. Time does not permit me to underline some of the calculations to which my hon. Friend referred and which ACPO made in an attempt to demonstrate the size of the problem. There is no difference between any commentators, however, when we come to discuss the marked persistency of reoffending among young people.
  The number of juveniles known to have committed crimes has fallen sharply in the past decade. In 1991, those under the age of 18 comprised 17 per cent. of known offenders compared with 25 per cent. in 1985 and 26 per cent. in 1981. What seems to be the case, however, is that those young people who offend tend to offend more often. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of findings of guilt per offender aged between 14 and 16 sentenced in court rose from 1·7 to 2. Those statistics underline the point that my hon. Friend was right to make: that persistence must be the number one priority that we address.
  It is good to be able to reply to the debate in the knowledge that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is committed to introducing, at the earliest opportunity, a secure training order, which will target the persistent juvenile offender. We have been left in no doubt by hon. Members, police officers and others that tackling those offenders, who have caused so much mayhem and havoc to our constituents, must be our number one priority.
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes that it will not be too long before the courts are provided with that new sentence. It is designed to be available for 12 to 15-year-olds who have been convicted of three imprison-able offences and who have proved unwilling or unable to comply with the requirements of supervision in the community while on remand or under sentence. The court would be empowered to impose such a sentence only when it was satisfield that that order was necessary to protect the public from further offending by a juvenile, and when a place in a suitable facility was available.
  Those caveats do not diminish the effect that we hope to achieve, but they show that, by concentrating on such

  629
  a sentence, we look to it to deal rigorously with the persistent offender—the person who, to put it bluntly, has not come to heel.
  My hon. Friend referred to the education that is available in young offender institutions. A key part of the new regime would concentrate on the education and training that an offender may lack. The regime is designed to get at the heart of an offender's behaviour. We will give ourselves sufficient time in which to do that because a secure training order will be imposed for a minimum of six months or up to two years. For a young person between the age of 12 and 15, that represents the possibility of his liberty being removed for an extremely long time. Moreover, I have visited a number of institutions that deal with juveniles under lock and key, and they certainly could not be described as holiday camps or pleasant places to go to.
  Many of the places that I have visited that deal with section 53 young offenders are spartan, have rigorous regimes and are not entirely pleasant. But they have one thing in common—they try to concentrate on educating the juveniles and getting to the heart of the offending behaviour. Our regime is different, because it will focus on the problems of the persistent juvenile offender. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is our earnest intention to provide up to 200 such places as soon as we can to enable the persistent juvenile offender to be dealt with. I hope that that reassures him.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my hon. Friend hopeful that he will gain the support of the Opposition? They seemed to undergo a conversion to law and order recently, but does not my hon. Friend find it amazing that there is not a single Labour Member or a single Liberal Democrat present for tonight's debate on an extremely important subject?
  Mr. Jack: I join my hon. Friend is saying that it is disappointing that the Opposition Benches are utterly deserted this evening. I have found it difficult to obtain an unequivocal endorsement of our policy proposal. I have challenged the Opposition from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions and, sadly, they have not given a clear and ringing endorsement of our policy. They have their own version of the policy, but it is not ours and it is not focused on the needs of the persistent juvenile offender. That is something that we have done, but they have not.
  It is important to consider the effectiveness of the policy. I acknowledge that we need to do more work when we consider the statistics of juvenile crime. But in sectors where research has been conducted, such as the Hereford and Worcester young offenders project, it has been found that, of those who went into custody, 86 per cent. reoffended, whereas 67 per cent. of those on community supervision reoffended.
  I am not proud that 67 per cent. of the latter reoffended, and more work needs to be done in that sphere, but there is a measurable and significant difference between the effectiveness of placing people in custody and punishing people in the community. While more work needs to be done on improving the effectiveness—the new national standards that we have introduced into the probation service will lend an enhanced rigour to the punishment
  630
  —we must remain aware of the fact that there is a significant difference in the reoffending rate of those who go into custody.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I advise my hon. Friend to be careful when drawing such a conclusion from the reoffending rates of those who go into custody for the simple reason that, with the current regime on cautioning and sentencing, the sort of young people who progress all the way to custody are so imbued with the ways of life of habitual crime that they are likely to reoffend in any event.
  Mr. Jack: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I hope that, in concentrating my remarks on what the secure training order will achieve, I can show him that we are trying to address the problem that he mentioned.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned cautioning. I agree that we must not undervalue cautioning as a first point of contact with the criminal justice system. Only 3 per cent. of cautions are given to juveniles who have already had two or more cautions. There has been a feeling that cautions are given out like sweets, but that is not so. Some 87 per cent. of those cautioned in 1985 were not convicted within two years. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are looking carefully at possible ways in which cautioning as a first encounter can be improved by attaching certain conditions.
  It is important to recognise that 87 per cent. of those cautioned in 1985 were not convicted within two years of the caution. Sometimes a caution can be a useful shock to the system, to promote an attitude of "so far and no further". We take that matter seriously.
  My hon. Friend mentioned attendance centres. I have also visited an attendance centre. When one considers the raw material with which attendance centres and probation centres have to deal, it becomes clear that such people are not the easiest with which to work. For somebody aged 12, 13 or 14, the attendance centre represents deprivation of liberty, and it is probably the first time that they have had to remain in one place for a period.
  There is the rigour of physical activity and a skill such as woodwork to occupy them. It is a first encounter with some form of custody. For those young people, it can be a useful reminder of what could come next if they do not learn some lessons in discipline. We are looking at ways and means of improving the regime in attendance centres. and the points raised by my hon. Friend will serve well to assist those working in them.
  My hon. Friend mentioned expanding the range of juvenile disposals. We are looking at the scope and scale of offences covered by section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to see whether certain offences should be brought into the range of custodial disposals.
  My hon. Friend went on to discuss the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I hope that he will know from the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend that we intend to take on board the views of right hon. and hon. Members, particularly on matters relating to section 29 of the Act. I am sure that my hon. Friend will see the Home Secretary's recent statements as confirmation of that.
  My hon. Friend mentioned regimes in young offender institutions. I counsel him to go to the Nightingale unit at Feltham. He will find that it is not a particularly pleasant place. However, he will find 15 hours of education and five hours of physical activity. He will also find guidance and counselling on alcoholism and drugs and other activities

  631
  that bring a rigour to the regime there in not particularly pleasant surroundings. Anger control is also addressed. A real attempt is made to deal with some of the most difficult offenders that one will find, some having committed some of the worst crimes in the country. My hon. Friend will not find a holiday camp atmosphere at Feltham—far from it. Instead, there is a determination to get hold of those young people in order to give them some rigour and discipline to enable them to go back into society and not reoffend again.
  632
  Finally, the short, sharp shock treatment to which my hon. Friend referred briefly was not particularly successful as 75 per cent. of the people reoffended. We are trying to introduce young people to some of the rigours of prison, a scheme presently existing on trial to enable some people to sample—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve midnight.

PRIME MINISTER

  Political Parties (Funding)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask The Prime Minister whether the Government will introduce legislation whereby political parties represented in the House will have to declare all moneys received from overseas.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no plans to do so.

  Friends of Bosnia
  Mr. Parry
  To ask The Prime Minister what representations he has received from the organisation Friends of Bosnia in Liverpool; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  So far as I am aware, none.

  Bogus Marriages
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask The Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the number of undetected bogus marriages taking place in the United Kingdom; and if he will appoint a senior Cabinet Minister to co-ordiinate an investigation into the abuse of the marriage laws, the extent to which this is facilitating illegal overstaying, circumvention of the immigration laws and the acquisition of British citizenship; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No realistic estimate can be made of the number of undetected bogus marriages, but superintendent registrars are alert to the need to report to the Registrar General where they have reason to believe that a marriage has been arranged solely for the purpose of circumventing immigration controls. Where this also involved a lawful impediment to the marriage, the superintendent registrar would not proceed with the ceremony.

  Where the Registrar General believes that a marriage is prima facie one of convenience, the facts are passed to the Home Office to take whatever action is necessary to enforce the immigration law.

  These arrangements will be kept under review, but I doubt whether an investigation of the kind suggested would increase their effectiveness. I shall, however, draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health the information that my hon. Friend has sent me.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Service
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Employment Service annual performance agreement for 1993–94 will be published.
  304
  Mrs. Shephard
  I have today placed copies of the Employment Service annual performance agreement for 1993–94 in the Library.

  May Day
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations she has held with the representatives of diary and calendar printers about the proposed abolition of the May day bank holiday; what consideration was given to their views; if her proposed change in the date of the bank holiday will take place in 1994; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department published a consultation document on the May day bank holiday on 1 December. Responses to the consultation document were received from a wide range of organisations, including some from within the dairy and calendar industry.

  An announcement on the future of the May day bank holiday will be made shortly.

  Terms and Conditions of Employment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she will take to ensure that employees receive a written statement of terms and conditions of employment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, currently before Parliament, significantly enhances the statutory right to a written statement of main terms and conditions of employment, reducing from 13 weeks to two months the period within which it must be provided and extending entitlement to employees working between eight and 16 hours a week, who have hitherto had to complete five years continuous service in order to qualify.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals she will bring forward to protect employees of under two years standing whose employers have not issued a written statement of terms and conditions of employment and persistently fail to provide one.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Employees who have not received a written statement to which they are entitled under the provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 may refer the matter to an industrial tribunal.

  Clause 28 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, currently before Parliament, introduces a new provision making it automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service or hours of work, for having sought in good faith to exercise a statutory employment protection right, including the right to a written statement.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish the numbers and percentages of her staff in grades one to five who each have(a) arts degrees, (b) science degrees, (c) technical degrees, (d) who are qualified accountants, (e) have post-graduate qualifications in management and (f) who were educated in (i) local authority and (ii) private schools.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The percentage of staff who have degrees are listed in the following table:
  305

  Grade 1—total staff in post = 1

  No degrees held

  Grade 2—total staff in post = 3

  100 per cent. of Grade 2s have a degree in science

  33 per cent of Grade 2s have a degree in arts

  Grade 3—total staff in post = 17

  35 per cent. of Grade 3s have a degree in science

  24 per cent. of Grade 3s have a degree in arts

  5 per cent. of Grade 3s have a qualification in management

  Grade 4—total staff in post =8

  50 per cent. of Grade 4s have a degree in science

  25 per cent. of Grade 4s have a degree in arts

  37 per cent. of Grade 4s have a qualification in management

  Grade 5—total staff in post = 89

  29 per cent. of Grade 5s have a degree in science

  22 per cent. of Grade 5s have a degree in arts

  10 per cent. of Grade 5s have a qualification in management

  1 per cent. of Grade 5s are qualified accountants.

  Laboratory Technicians
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many grades of laboratory technician are registered in the United Kingdom; and how many are designated as medical laboratory scientific officers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No information of this kind is held by the Employment Department.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the number of people employed in(a) onshore and (b) offshore oil and gas related activity in (i) 1991 and (ii) 1992; and what is her estimate of the total at the latest available date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no separate figures for onshore and offshore oil and gas related activity. The available information is as follows:

  Employees in employment: Great Britain

  February 1991

  February 1992

  February 1993

  Extraction of mineral oil and natural gas

  150,000

  n/a

  n/a

  Mineral oil processing

  18,000

  17,000

  16,000

  Public gas supply

  78,000

  78,000

  75,000

  1 The latest estimate available is taken from the September 1991 census of employment.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the average number of hours per week worked by people in full-time employment inclusive of any overtime.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Estimates from the Labour Force Survey show that in autumn 1992 (September—November), people in full-time employment worked on average 45 hours per week including overtime (not seasonally adjusted).

  Small Business Support Schemes
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what studies her Department has undertaken of the effectiveness of small business support schemes delivered by training and enterprise councils; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department currently has responsibility for the business start-up scheme (BSUS), (formerly enterprise allowance), which assists unemployed people to set up a business. The following studies have been carried out on the effectiveness of BSUS since training and enterprise councils (TECs) took over responsibility for its delivery:"Enterprise Allowance Scheme: Evaluation of Development Projects", PIEDA, 1992.
  "Enterprise Allowance/Business Start Up: A Survey of TEC Schemes", IFF Research Ltd., 1992.

  The Department regularly carries out evaluation of all its major programmes, including the BSUS, and will continue to do so.

  A number of other small business support measures run by TECs are now the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give for each travel-to-work area and jobcentre area in Scotland the absolute change in the numbers of unemployed claimants between February and March and, for the same period, the numbers of claimants, (i) obtaining paid employments, (ii) entering into Government training schemes, (iii) being transferred to other benefits, (iv) being removed from the claimant count for reasons other than entering employment, (v) failing the actively seeking work test and (vi) having benefit disqualified.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Statistical information is not routinely collected on the reasons why people cease to claim unemployment related benefits.

  Figures on the net monthly changes in total claimant unemployment and the flows in and out of claimant unemployment for each parliamentary constituency, local authority area, travel-to-work area, and jobcentre area in Scotland can be obtained from the NOM IS database in the Library.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has held with Civil Service unions concerning the impact of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on the policy of market testing civil service jobs.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My ministerial colleagues and I have meetings with the civil service unions from time to time to discuss the range of Government policies.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his Department will issue up-to-date figures for savings achieved by market testing of Government services.
  307
  Mr. Waldegrave
  In previous years, savings arising from market testing have typically been around 25 per cent. of the original cost even where the activity has remained in-house. Savings from the programme for the period ending on 30 September 1993 are not yet available. When they are, I am sure that they will show significant savings in costs and improvements in quality, such as reliability and timeliness.

  Citizens Charters
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on the workings of the citizens charters.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Since my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 25 November 1992 the citizens charter has brought about further significant achievements. These include three new and one revised charter, the announcement of a complaints adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, and the launch of the second charter mark scheme. We shall publish a further White Paper in due course to record achievements across all public services.

  Public Servants (Freemasons)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to require declarations of interest by public servants who are freemasons.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 29 March at col. 14, an amendment to the civil service code is to be published shortly. The amendment will remind civil servants that freemasonry is among the possible sources of conflicts of interest which should be reported if and when they occur. A copy of the amendment will be placed in the Library of the House when published.

  Hall I'th Wood Museum, Bolton
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to visit Hall I'th Wood Museum, Bolton, to discuss measures to increase awareness of science amongst the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As my hon. Friend knows, I visited his constituency on 30 March this year. I am very happy to discuss with him measures to increase the public understanding of science.

  Cost (rounded to nearest £000)

  From

  To

  BR passengers charter

  1,000·0

  May 1992

  May 1993

  London Underground Limited customers charter

  41·0

  August 1992

  January 1993

  Benefits Agency customer charter

  1,058·0

  April 1992

  September 1992

  Jobseekers charter

  89·0

  April 1992

  March 1993

  Contributions Agency employers and contributors charters

  63·0

  April 1992

  March 1993

  Northern Ireland Railways passengers charter

  0·4

  November 1992

  April 1993

  Travellers charter

  9·0

  January 1992

  March 1993

  Total

  2,260·4

  In addition to this, in the financial year 1992–93 the Inland Revenue paid £389,000 in compensations for

  Science White Paper
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultations he has undertaken on his proposed White Paper on science.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have consulted working scientists and industry, professional bodies, research charities and many others in order to prepare for the forthcoming White Paper on science and technology. I have published over 250 of the written submissions I have received.

  Fourth Framework Programme
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how he will secure the maximum opportunity for United Kingdom interests within the fourth framework programme.

  Mr. Jackson
  United Kingdom research teams take an active part in EC programmes, and in negotiating the fourth framework programme we shall aim to ensure that it reflects United Kingdom research needs. We shall also advertise the opportunities to carry out research under EC programmes as widely as possible throughout the United Kingdom science and technology community.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government intend to introduce a citizens charter for small firms.

  Mr. Jackson
  No. When service providers publish a charter they should set out standards of service to meet the needs of all the various users. Of course these include small firms, to which the Government attach great importance.

  Research Councils
  Sir Giles Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the research councils have now issued their corporate plans 1993.

  Mr. Jackson
  All five of the research councils have issued their corporate plans 1993.

  Charters (Compensation)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total amount of compensation the state paid out on all charters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The total amount of compensation paid out by organisations which have charters is set out as follows:
  309
  "serious error" as defined in the code of practice "Mistakes by the Inland Revenue". Customs and Excise has paid £315,000 in ex-gratia payments.

  Office of Science and Technology
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide figures for expenditure for the Office of Science and Technology for(a) technology transfer and (b) industrial innovation (i) for the past five years and (ii) as projected for the next three years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The table lists the expenditure by the Office of Science and Technology for the "technology transfer" component of the primary purpose classification of research and development, as defined in the 1992 edition of the Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development. Information is not available under the heading "industrial innovation" as there is, as yet, no accepted standard definition of the term. The table lists the Office's expenditure under the primary purpose category "technology support", which includes strategic and applied research and pre-competitive schemes such as LINK.

  Year

  Technology transfer £ million

  Technology support £ million

  1988–89

  4·9

  1—

  1989–90

  4·0

  209·0

  1990–91

  4·6

  238·0

  1991–92

  6·1

  243·9

  1992–93

  6·8

  289·6

  1993–94

  8·7

  326·9

  1994–95

  8·9

  347·2

  1995–96

  9·1

  358·1

  1 Note: The primary purpose classifications were changed between 1988–89 and 1989–90 with the introduction of a new class "technology support", but did not affect "technology transfer".

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BNFL Contracts
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial safeguards exist to protect British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. in its contracts with Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for the companies involved.

  Nuclear Reprocessing Contracts
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the role of his Department in the Nuclear Electric/Scottish Nuclear/BNFL discussions about reprocessing contracts at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  The negotiations are a commercial matter for the companies involved.

  Civil Aviation Research
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish his Department's report, drawn up by its aviation committee, into future DTI funding for civil aviation research; and if he will make a statement.
  310
  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 4 May 1993,Official Report, column 5.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how long his Department has been in possession of its aviation committee's report into future DTI funding for civil aircraft research; and what action he has taken in light of its conclusions.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The national strategic technology acquisition plan for aeronautics was formally presented to my Department on 4 November 1992; the committee's proposals are being considered.

  Betws Colliery
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to allow the running of Betws colliery to be taken over by the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Coal is committed to offering to the private sector pits which it no longer wishes to operate, including Betws. The Government welcome this commitment.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent inquiries there have been from the private sector into the possibility of taking over the running of Betws colliery: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have recently had a number of discussions with representatives of the private mining sector about a range of matters.

  British Coal is, of course, committed to offering to the private sector pits which it no longer wishes to operate and is keen to begin this process as rapidly as possible.

  Developmental Staff
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the numbers and percentages of his staff in grades 1 to 5 who have(a) arts degrees, (b) science degrees, (c) technical degrees, (d) who are qualified accountants and (e) have postgraduate qualifications in management.

  Mr. Eggar
  Of the 328 people in grades 1 to 5 who are on the permanent staff of the Department of Trade and Industry, 176 (54 per cent.) have arts degrees, 86 (26 per cent.) have science degrees and 21 (6 per cent.) have technical degrees. There are 10 qualified accountants and 10 whose records indicate postgraduate qualifications in management.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many exploration and appointed oil and gas wells were drilled in the United Kingdom continental shelf fin 1992; and what is his estimate of the number to be drilled in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c)

  Mr. Eggar
  Seventy two explorations and 57 appraisal wells were drilled in 1992. My Department does not publish forecasts for the number of wells. It does, however,
  311
  conduct regular surveys of company plans for drilling wells looking up to two years ahead. The results of the last survey were published in the August 1992 issues of "Energy Trends", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Companies House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place a copy in the Library of the information letter on the stage 2 privatisation options exercise circulated to all members of the staff of Companies house in the last week of April; what date he has set for the completion of the stage 2 exercise; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the notice to staff requested by the hon. Member. The consultants have been asked to complete their report by the end of July.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the state of the British leather goods manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 6 may 1993]: The leather goods manufacturing industry (Standard Industrial Classification Group 442) had total United Kingdom sales of £213 million in 1991. Employment, in 1990, of 10,800 is concentrated largely in small units, three quarters of which have fewer 10 employees and none over a 100. International trade is significant: imports account for some 77 per cent of United Kingdom consumption and the United Kingdom industry exports 54 per cent. of its output. An ecouraging feature is that since 1986 exports have been growing more rapadily than imports—13 per cent. per annum and 8 per cent per annum respective respectively.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those next steps agencies within his responsibility that he plans to privatise.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 22 April 1993]: The prospects for privatising the agencies in my Department are kept continually under review. Since it was established in 1990 as an executive agency the National Engineering Laboratory has been working towards full commercial viability with a view to privatisation: it continues to work towards that objective. I announced a specific review of Companies House in July 1992, which is continuing. I have just announced a study on the long term future of the DTI laboratories: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 4 May 1993, Official Report, column 4.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Population Programmes
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions for 1993 are being made to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the United Nations Population Fund and the World Health Organisation human reproduction programme.
  312
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  IPPF

  17·5

  UNFPA

  17·0

  WHO/HRP

  3·0

  1 Core grant. Additional contributions for specific programme activities will also be made.

  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the Government have taken to ensure that funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Population Fund is not used in coercive population control measures.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  IPPF and UNFPA, like Her Majesty's Government, are firmly opposed to any population activities in which there is any element of coercion of individuals to practise family planning, or to accept any particular type of contraception. Their population programmes fully accord with the human rights principles set out in the world population plan of action.

  We examine annually with other donor Governments IPPF and UNFPA policies and programmes at the IPPF donors meeting and UNFPA Governing Council respectively. We are also in regular consultation with IPPF and UNFPA about their population activities.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the total United Kingdom bilateral disbursements on population activities and to which countries for each of the years 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Total aid programme disbursements on population activities amounted to some £26·5 million in 1991 and £28 million in 1992, of which £7·2 million and £6·1 million respectively represented bilateral disbursements. This bilateral assistance was distributed as follows:

  1991 £

  1992 £

  Ethiopia

  37,249

  8,159

  Ghana

  469,000

  771,918

  Kenya

  606,829

  1,812,248

  Malawi

  100,000

  185,932

  Nigeria

  20,000

  47,490

  Sierra Leone

  39,742

  —

  Tanzania

  101,207

  129,266

  Uganda

  11,143

  105,874

  Zambia

  3,280

  27,594

  Bangladesh

  2,667,706

  586,254

  India

  2,380,073

  1,629,931

  Malaysia

  150,196

  100,245

  Pakistan

  613,181

  208,979

  Anguilla

  39,500

  —

  Madagascar

  —

  2,631

  Zimbabwe

  —

  29,372

  South Africa1

  —

  84,155

  Nepal

  —

  139,952

  Fiji

  —

  2,000

  Vietnam

  —

  147,351

  Vanuatu

  —

  13,126

  Paraguay

  —

  3,116

  Occupied territories

  —

  11,250

  Caribbean

  —

  6,650

  1 South African non-governmental organisation.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking in response to the evaluation carried out at the request of the Overseas Development Administration of four tree-planting projects funded by British aid in Lesotho, Kenya, Ivory Coast and southern India.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  These projects, started during the 1970s and early 1980s, were completed between 1987 and 1991. The evaluations were undertaken after their conclusion in order better to assess their overall impact. The lessons drawn from them have been carefully noted, both by Overseas Development Administration staff responsible for similar projects including any follow-on work in the four countries, and by the Commonwealth Development Corporation which co-financed the Cote d'Ivoire project. We are preparing formal written guidance, based on the findings and lessons of these and other forestry evaluations, for use in identifying, appraising, implementing and monitoring forestry projects.

  Eritrea
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all current United Kingdom assistance to aid development projects in Eritrea and the cost in each case.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  Past British aid to Eritrea has been included in the British aid programme to Ethiopia. This includes grants to NGOs working in Ethiopia and Eritrea, expected to total around £1 million in 1993–94. We recently made a contribution of over £250,000 towards the United Nations verification mission to the Eritrean referendum, including four observers and supporting equipment.

  We have been discussing with the Eritrean authorities a separate development aid programme for 1993–94, for which £500,000 has been allocated. This will include 17 United Kingdom training awards, costing £187,000; other elements will be agreed in the coming months.

  Angola
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the levels of humanitarian aid to the civilian population of Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 30 April 1993]: The return to civil war in Angola has made it very difficult to assess need and deliver aid to the civilian population of Angola. We have provided some humanitarian relief already and are keen to do more where we are confident that it will reach its intended beneficiaries. We are monitoring the situation closely with international agencies and non-governmental organisations.

SCOTLAND

  War Crimes
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Crown Office has yet received a report about the Gecas case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not the normal practice of my noble and learned Friend the Lord 314
  Advocate to disclose the names of individuals who may be under investigation or to comment on the stage that any particular inquiries may have reached.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the total cost incurred in respect of war crime investigations in Scotland in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many prosecutions in respect of war crimes are being contemplated in respect of Scotland for the current year;

  (3) how many people in Scotland (a) have been investigated over the last five years and (b) are currently being investigated in respect of alleged war crimes committed during the second world war.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total cost incurred in respect of war crimes investigations in Scotland in 1991–92 was £267,520. For 1992–93 the latest available figures show that the cost was £352,966. Costs did not arise before those financial years.

  It has never been the practice of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate or his predecessors to disclose, at the stage of investigations and before investigations are complete, whether or not prosecutions are being contemplated. In the course of the investigations conducted over the past two years allegations against 17 named individuals have been, or are being, considered and investigated in Scotland.

  Local Government
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the public Acts of Parliament passed since the general election of 1979 which have affected the duties, powers and responsibilities of local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: The list gives the most readily identifiable Acts passed since the general election of 1979 which are extant and affect the duties, powers and responsibilities of local government in Scotland.

  Access to Personal Files Act 1987

  Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Act 1991

  Children Act 1989

  Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991

  Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982

  Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986

  Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991

  Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989

  Consumer Protection Act 1987

  Estate Agents Act 1979

  Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1982

  Disabled Persons Act 1981

  Estate Agents Act 1979

  Education Schools Act 1992

  Education (Scotland) Act 1980

  Environmental Protection Act 1990

  Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987

  Food and Safety Act 1990

  Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984

  Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992

  Health and Local Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983

  Housing Act 1988

  Housing and Planning Act 1986

  Housing Associations Act 1985

  Housing (Scotland) Act 1987

  Housing (Scotland) Act 1988

  Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Act 1983

  Local Government Act 1986

  315

  Local Government Act 1988

  Local Government Act 1992

  Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982

  Local Government Finance Act 1988

  Local Government Finance Act 1992

  Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981

  Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984

  Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987

  National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990

  Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991

  Planning and Compensation Act 1991

  Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993

  Property Misdescriptions Act 1991

  Public Order Act 1986

  Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984

  Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act 1987

  Rent (Scotland) Act 1984

  Representation of the People Acts 1983, 1985, 1989 and 1990

  Roads and Streets Act 1991

  Roads (Scotland) Act 1984

  School Boards (Scotland) Act 1980

  Self-Governing Schools Etc (Scotland) Act 1989

  Social Security Act 1986

  Social Security Administration Act 1992

  Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

  Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992

  Solvent Abuse (Scotland) Act 1983

  Telecommunications Act 1984

  Town and Country Planning Act 1984

  Town and Country Planning (Compensation) Act 1985

  Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981

  Transport Act 1985

  Water Act 1989

  Consultants in selected specialties By contract status and health board As at 30 September 1992

  Specialty/contract

  Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Medical oncology

  Whole-time

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Part-time

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Radiotherapy

  Whole-time

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Part-time

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  30

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  General surgery

  Whole-time

  136

  12

  8

  3

  4

  7

  8

  11

  Part-time

  17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Total

  153

  12

  8

  3

  4

  7

  8

  14

  Notes:

  (a) Whole-time includes maximum part-time appointments.

  (b) Part-time includes clinical academic staff holding honorary appointments.

  Consultants in selected specialties by contract status and health board as at 30 September 1992

  Specialty/contract

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Medical oncology

  Whole-time

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Part-time

  5

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  7

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Radiotherapy

  Whole-time

  11

  2

  0

  6

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Part-time

  2

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  316

  Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985

  Water (Scotland) Act 1980

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  Zoo Licensing Act 1981

  Cancer Screening
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women were screened for breast and cervical cancer in each year since 1987 within(a) the Argyll and Clyde health board area, (b) the Greater Glasgow health board area and (c) Scotland as a whole; if he will estimate in each case the percentage of women in the age range from 20 to 60 years who availed themselves of these tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 6 May 1993]: The information requested is currently being compiled and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Medical Staff
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many consultant medical oncologists, radiotherapists and general surgeons are employed on(a) a full-time basis and (b) a part-time basis in each of the health boards.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 May 1993]: The numbers of consultants in the specialties of medical oncology, radiotherapy and general surgery employed on a full-time basis and a part-time basis at 30 September 1992, the latest date for which information is available, are given in the following annex.
  317

  Specially/contract

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Total

  13

  2

  0

  9

  0

  0

  3

  0

  General surgery

  Whole-time

  30

  8

  13

  19

  1

  2

  9

  1

  Part-time

  8

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  1

  Total

  38

  8

  13

  21

  1

  2

  12

  2

  Note

  (a) Whole-time includes maximum part-time appointments.

  (b) Part-time includes clinical academic staff holding honorary appointment.

  Cancer
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the seven most common malignant neoplasms amongst NHS patients; and what were the number of deaths brought about by each in the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 May 1993]: The table gives the number of registrations of the seven most common cancers in men and women in Scotland in the period 1987–91 and the number of deaths from these forms of cancer in the same five-year period.

  Numbers of registrations and deaths from the seven most common malignant neoplasms, by sex, Scotland 1987–91

  Site of Cancer

  Number of registrations

  Number of deaths

  Males

  Trachea, bronchus and lung

  15,163

  13,869

  Non-melanoma skin cancer

  9,560

  121

  Prostate

  6,204

  3,112

  Colon

  4,363

  2,466

  Bladder

  4,241

  1,535

  Stomach

  3,406

  2,603

  Rectum

  2,534

  1,524

  Females

  Breast

  13,913

  6,379

  Non-melanoma skin cancer

  9,202

  114

  Trachea, bronchus and lung

  8,078

  7,131

  Colon

  5,563

  3,273

  Ovary

  2,779

  1,990

  Stomach

  2,370

  1,915

  Rectum

  2,283

  1,427

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet Mr. Rauf Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  None.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations are being made to Cyprus for Asil Nadir to be brought back to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have an extradition treaty with the Republic of Cyprus, but the writ of the lawful Government does not run in the north of the island.
  318
  Immediately after Nadir's abscondment, our high commissioner in Nicosia met Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Denktash on 5 May to demand that Nadir be handed over to the British authorities.

  On 7 May I summoned the Turkish ambassador to explain the anger felt in this country, and ask for Turkish assistance in ensuring Nadir's return.

  The Turkish Cypriots should appreciate the damage it could do to their interests if they were to acquire a reputation as a refuge for fugitives from justice.

  Libya
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens are(a) currently serving sentences and (b) awaiting sentencing in Libyan prisons.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no British citizens serving sentences or awaiting sentences in Libyan prisons.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the numbers and percentages of his staff in grades one to five who each have(a) arts degrees, (b) science degrees, (c) technical degrees, (d) who are qualified accountants, (e) have post-graduate qualifications in management and (f) who were educated in (i) local authority and (ii) private schools.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I shall write to the hon. Member with details as soon as they are available.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his response to the Libyan/Russian proposal at the United Nations for an international tribunal under United Nations auspices to try the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not aware of any such proposal.

  Unpaid Parking Fines
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish figures recording the number of unpaid parking fines incurred by diplomatic missions in London during 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is given in the table. The table also includes those international organisations which incurred unpaid fines. The figures may be reduced by late payments.
  319
  The total of 4,166 represents a 19 per cent. reduction from the same period in 1991 when 5,145 fines were incurred. This compares favourably with the same period in 1984 when almost 108,932 fines were recorded. We welcome this further reduction in unpaid parking fines and appreciate the cooperation of diplomatic missions and international organisations since the introduction of the parking policy. We shall continue to monitor carefully the level of unpaid fines and pressure diplomatic missions to reduce this still further.

  Unpaid parking fines

  Diplomatic mission

  1992

  1991

  Turkey

  245

  130

  Russia

  226

  363

  France

  182

  95

  Nigeria

  167

  159

  China

  159

  140

  Greece

  153

  150

  United Arab Emirates

  128

  21

  Saudi Arabia (1991 includes Libyan Interests Sec.)

  127

  200

  Zambia

  117

  63

  Cote D'Ivoire

  106

  121

  Israel

  86

  204

  Korea

  85

  116

  Kuwait

  85

  0

  Tunisia

  81

  43

  Thailand

  80

  72

  Cameroon

  70

  38

  Sudan

  70

  123

  Poland

  69

  154

  Egypt

  68

  78

  India

  66

  73

  Gambia

  63

  56

  Romania

  62

  34

  Cyprus

  62

  55

  Uruguay

  61

  57

  Hungary

  60

  68

  Germany

  60

  65

  Spain

  60

  45

  Oman

  59

  52

  Pakistan

  57

  97

  Qatar

  52

  94

  Morocco

  48

  117

  Ghana

  48

  84

  Libyan Interests Sec, Saudi Arabia

  44

  —

  Portugal

  42

  40

  Bangladesh

  41

  49

  Zimbabwe

  38

  38

  Jordan

  38

  89

  Mauritius

  38

  13

  Angola

  35

  11

  Algeria

  34

  11

  Bulgaria

  33

  81

  Gabon

  32

  25

  Barbados

  29

  54

  Malaysia

  27

  26

  United States

  26

  17

  Brazil

  25

  26

  Italy

  25

  34

  Brunei

  24

  30

  Tanzania

  23

  47

  Syria

  22

  16

  Zaire

  20

  7

  Mexico

  19

  6

  Senegal

  19

  2

  Malawi

  18

  20

  Bahrain

  18

  35

  Finland

  16

  25

  Venezuela

  16

  17

  Lebanon

  14

  9

  Ethiopia

  14

  27

  Japan

  14

  16

  Ireland

  13

  5

  Yugoslavia

  12

  41

  Iran

  12

  13

  320

  Diplomatic mission

  1992

  1991

  Kenya

  12

  6

  Yemen

  12

  20

  Jamaica

  11

  11

  Nepal

  11

  7

  Iraqi Interest Section, Jordan

  11

  38

  Cuba

  11

  13

  Canada

  10

  135

  Lesotho

  10

  7

  Philippines

  10

  8

  Paraguay

  10

  6

  Fiji

  9

  10

  Afghanistan

  9

  0

  Guyana

  7

  16

  Burma

  7

  10

  Guatemala

  7

  27

  Peru

  7

  7

  Uganda

  7

  5

  Sierra Leone

  6

  28

  Honduras

  5

  9

  Austria

  5

  3

  Malta

  5

  2

  Australia

  5

  5

  Chile

  5

  7

  Indonesia

  5

  3

  South Africa

  5

  2

  East Caribbean States

  5

  13

  Sweden

  4

  8

  Belgium

  4

  6

  Mongolia

  4

  9

  Liberia

  4

  18

  Former Czechoslovakia

  4

  6

  Panama

  3

  14

  Seychelles

  3

  4

  Sri Lanka

  3

  3

  Luxembourg

  3

  2

  Mozambique

  3

  3

  Lithuania

  2

  —

  Armenia

  2

  —

  Nicaragua

  2

  1

  Netherlands

  2

  3

  Colombia

  2

  0

  Denmark

  2

  1

  Switzerland

  2

  2

  Vietnam

  2

  13

  Trinidad and Tobago

  2

  7

  Norway

  2

  4

  Singapore

  1

  3

  Botswana

  1

  1

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  2

  Bahamas

  1

  4

  Iceland

  1

  3

  Costa Rica

  1

  2

  El Salvador

  1

  0

  New Zealand

  1

  0

  Togo (Embassy closed 30 September 1991)

  0

  8

  Somalia (Embassy closed 2 January 1992)

  0

  5

  Bolivia

  0

  9

  Swaziland

  0

  1

  Ecuador

  0

  1

  Dominica

  0

  1

  Benin

  0

  1

  Argentina

  0

  1

  Slovenia

  0

  —

  Latvia

  0

  —

  Ukraine

  0

  —

  Grenada

  0

  0

  Namibia

  0

  —

  Croatia

  0

  —

  Tonga

  0

  0

  Estonia

  0

  —

  Belize

  0

  0

  Antigua and Barbuda

  0

  0

  International organisations

  Commonwealth Secretariat

  28

  26

  EBRD

  8

  —

  INMARSAT

  7

  3

  African Development Bank

  5

  —

  321

  Diplomatic mission

  1992

  1991

  Coffee

  2

  2

  WEU

  1

  0

  IMO

  1

  1

  EC

  1

  2

  United Nations

  0

  0

  Sugar

  0

  0

  Cocoa

  0

  —

  4,166

  4,575

  Diplomatic Immunity
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many serious offences were alleged to have been committed in 1992 by persons entitled to diplomatic immunity; and how many foreign diplomats were withdrawn from their posts in Britain in that year as a result of alleged offences.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Thirty-three alleged serious offences by persons entitled to diplomatic immunity were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1992, as against 40 the previous year. "Serious offences" are defined in accordance with the report to the Foreign Affairs Committee, "The Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges (1985)" as offences falling into a category which would in certain circumstances attract a maximum penalty of six months or more imprisonment. The majority involved drinking and driving and shoplifting.

  Eight diplomats were withdrawn from their posts in Britain in 1992 following alleged offences, as against seven the previous year.

  Overseas Trade Assistance
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has to increase the assistance available overseas to businesses seeking to increase trade in other countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  In consultation with the DTI (as our partners in Overseas Trade Services) we are constantly seeking ways to enhance the export services we offer to British industry.

EDUCATION

  "How is Your Child Doing at School?"
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the total number of telephone calls and written requests for "How is Your Child Doing at School?"; and how many were distributed in each of the 10 languages listed in the advertisement on 27 April.

  Mr. Forth
  Responses to the first part of this campaign are still being compiled. My right hon. Friend will announce these in due course.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to announce his decision following the consultations on the common funding formula for grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.
  322
  Mr. Forth
  We are currently considering the responses to the first consultation paper on the common funding formula (CFF). In the light of that consideration we intend to issue a second consultation paper early in the summer as a further move towards the introduction of the CFF in a small number of pilot areas from April 1994.

  NERIS Database
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total public expenditure on the NERIS service; what circumstances have led to it being wound up; what implications there are for the delivery of the national curriculum; what action he is taking to salvage the NERIS database; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  From 1985–86—the first year of investment —to date, the total Government investment in NERIS from my Department and three others was £5 million. The purpose of this was to develop the database service to a position in which NERIS would be fully self-sufficient, serving schools and colleges across the United Kingdom. It failed to do that and the number of subscriptions declined substantially last year to a figure of only some 2,200. It was therefore decided that no further public investment could be justified. The NERIS Trust is currently considering winding-up procedures.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures he intends to take to encourage people with disabilities to become teachers, nursery nurses or teachers' aides.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department is in consultation with disabled teachers' interest groups prior to the revision of the Department's circular 1/88 "Physical and Mental Fitness to Teach of Teachers and of Entrants to Teacher Training". This will continue to stress that disability in itself does not mean a person is medically unfit to teach, but that the paramount consideration should be the health and welfare of pupils. Applicants need to take into account that employment in these areas can also make significant demands on an individual's strength and stamina.

  Special Schools (Tests)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations he has received from the National Association for Special Educational Needs regarding the implementation of the standard assessment tests for seven-year-olds in special schools.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no record of my right hon. Friend having received any representations in recent months from the National Association for Special Educational Needs on testing.

  We believe that children with special educational needs should follow the national curriculum and participate in its associated assessment arrangements wherever possible, so that they have access to the same education as other pupils. The School Examinations and Assessment Council has given guidance to schools about ways in which the tests for both seven and 14-year-olds might be modified or adapted for pupils with special needs, without compromising the results they yield, so that as wide a range of pupils as possible can benefit from them.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) of 30 April Official Report, column 555, if he will give the corresponding information on surplus school places for Cleveland.

  Mr. Forth
  On the basis of the survey of school capacity carried out by the Department we estimate that in Cleveland in 1991 there were some 11,181 primary and 10,676 secondary surplus places, representing, respectively, 17 per cent. and 23 per cent. of total capacity.

  Tests (Advertising)
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide a breakdown of the £750,000 her Department recently spent on advertising the Government's view on the testing of school children.

  Mr. Forth
  The campaign is providing information to parents about this summer's tests. It involves the production, printing and distribution of the leaflet -How is Your Child Doing at School?". The leaflet has been distributed to schools and its availability advertised in the national press. The total cost of the campaign has been estimated at £750,000 although the final cost will depend on the number of requests for further leaflets.

  Nursery Schools
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for each Greater London borough, the percentages of children under five years old currently registered as attending local authority funded nursery schools; and if he will list for each of the boroughs what percentage of under fives attended maintained nursery schools in 1986, 1988, 1990 and 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  Participation rates for January 1992—the latest date for which information is available—are shown in the table. Because of recent revisions to the population estimates to take account of the provisional results of the 1991 national census of population, information is not available on a comprehensive basis for earlier years at individual authority level.

  Estimated percentage of the local three- and four-year-old population attending maintained nursery schools in each education authority in the Greater London region. January 1992

  Participation rates

  Camden

  5

  Greenwich

  10

  Hackney

  3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  16

  Islington

  6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  9

  Lambeth

  6

  Lewisham

  3

  Southwark

  7

  Tower Hamlets

  11

  Wandsworth

  3

  Westminster1

  5

  Barking

  n/a

  Barnet

  6

  Bexley

  3

  Brent

  4

  Bromley

  n/a

  Croydon

  5

  324

  Participation rates

  Ealing

  8

  Enfield

  n/a

  Haringey

  4

  Harrow

  n/a

  Havering

  n/a

  Hillingdon

  2

  Hounslow

  n/a

  Kingston upon Thames

  7

  Merton

  n/a

  Newham

  12

  Redbridge

  n/a

  Richmond upon Thames

  2

  Sutton

  5

  Waltham Forest

  5

  Greater London

  5

  1 Includes City ILEA.

  n/a = not applicable.

WALES

  Badger Setts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, further to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 270, what advice has been obtained before granting a licence to allow dogs to be entered into a badger sett; what criteria have been applied to determine whether, when and to whom such a licence should be granted; what measures have been taken to ensure that the minimum harm possible is suffered by dog and badger; and what are the conditions attached to the granting of any such licence.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Any licence application to permit the entry of dogs into badger setts would be judged on its merits, taking account of advice from wildlife experts from the Agricultural Development Advisory Service following a site visit. Conditions attached to a particular licence will reflect the circumstances of the case.

  Local Government, Gower
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit West Cross in the Gower constituency to discuss factors affecting local government matters.

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

  Employment Projects
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 May,Official Report, column 24, if he will specify the number of projects in each county corresponding to the jobs (a) created, (b) safeguarded and (c) the capital expenditure as arising from inward investment in 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The county by county breakdown of inward investment projects recorded for Wales during 1992–93 is shown in the following table. The figures are based on information provided by the companies at the time the projects were recorded and have not been amended to take account of any subsequent development.

  County

  Number of projects

  Clwyd

  40

  Dyfed

  13

  Gwent

  42

  325

  County

  Number of projects

  Gwynedd

  22

  Powys

  22

  Mid Glamorgan

  30

  South Glamorgan

  21

  West Glamorgan

  11

  Total

  201

  Health Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to fund-holding general practitioners in respect of payment for patients referred to treatment centres for ophthalmic, general or orthopaedic surgery.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the guidance on treatment centres sent to all general practitioners and general practitioner fund holders, fund holders are eligible for a share of the centrally allocated places available to their district health authority. The cost of treatment for these places is funded centrally by the Welsh Office and there is no charge to general practitioner fund holders. In addition, health authorities and fund holders are free to make contracts with the centres for treatments over and above those funded by the Welsh Office.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Local Tax Offices
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the closure of the Inland Revenue offices in Sittingbourne, Kent; what will be the cost of providing the service elsewhere, including location costs; and what is the financial saving on a year to year basis.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Ten representations expressing concern at the planned closure of the tax office in Sittingbourne, Kent have been received. The costs of providing the service elsewhere and the financial savings cannot be separately identified since the closure of the Sittingbourne office is a part of a larger reorganisation involving offices in Maidstone, Kent.

  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many local tax offices have been closed, or are planned to be closed, in 1992–93 and 1993–94, or any convenient period for which he has information; and what are the estimated savings arising nationally.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue is engaged in a long-term programme to restructure its 766 local offices in order to improve taxpayer services, operational effectiveness, and cost efficiency. By March 1994,15 reorganisation schemes involving 71 existing offices will have taken place. Of these, 61 offices will cease to exist in their present form. The work carried out in those offices together with part of the work in 10 other offices will have been transferred to 31 newly created Revenue offices. Savings arising from the rationalisation of local office accommodation in these 15 schemes are expected to be of the order of £1·25 million a year in 1993–94 prices.
  326
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Inland Revenue takes into account the provisions of the citizens charter when contemplating the closure of local tax offices, with particular regard to the question of customer access for advice and help from officials.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue is fully committed to achieving further improvements in taxpayer service, operational effectiveness and in cost efficiency. In locations where tax offices may be closed, the Department is investigating alternative ways of meeting taxpayers' needs. These objectives are in line with those of the citizens charter.

  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what process of consultation is followed when the Inland Revenue plan the closure of a local tax office; and what account is taken of representations from accountants, local companies and individual taxpayers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue has begun a long-term programme to restructure its local offices in order to improve taxpayer service, operational effectiveness, and cost efficiency. The results of major surveys to establish taxpayer and employer needs are informing this programme. Representations from accountants, companies, and taxpayers are considered, but it is not normally possible to carry out detailed advance consultation. Discussions with staff take place on the implications for them of a closure, and the arrangements necessary.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of the Inland Revenue in respect of providing local offices at which taxpayers may have their affairs dealt with and may raise queries personally with the official dealing with their case.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue has begun a long-term programme to restructure its local offices in order to improve taxpayer service, operational effectiveness and cost efficiency. The results of major surveys to establish taxpayer and employer needs are informing this programme. In some locations offices may be closed but where that happens the Department is investigating alternative ways of meeting taxpayers' needs.

  Industrial Building Allowance Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the total tax receipts forgone in each enterprise zone arising from industrial building allowance trusts that have been approved.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Tax Deduction Certificates
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 248, if he will list those representations received last year concerning the free provision of tax deduction certificates by banks.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not our practice to publish representations of this nature, but the number we have received is quite small.

  VAT (Education)
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what forecast he has made of the revenue which would be raised by introducing a definition of education in schedule 6 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983 that excluded(a) music, (b) flower arranging and (c) domestic science, taught at adult education classes throughout the United Kingdom, from exemption;

  (2) what revenue he would expect to raise by applying a definition of "education" in schedule 6 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983 that excluded adult residential colleges from exemption.

  Sir John Cope
  No estimates have been made of the likely revenue effects.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he has given to Customs and Excise in defining the terms and the scope of their investigations into the interpretation of the 6th VAT directive (77/388/EEC) with respect to education.

  Sir John Cope
  None. Customs and Excise is undertaking an internal review of the VAT exemptions available for educational services provided by fee-paying schools, universities and other businesses to see whether, within the constraints of EC agreements there is scope for simplification and rationalisation, and will report their conclusions to Ministers in due course.

  Inheritance Tax Exemptions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, columns 380–81, when the computerised register of objects granted conditional exemption from inheritance tax will be available for inspection.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue has now completed the computerisation of the register of conditionally exempt works of art (often known as the "V&A list"). The new computerised register includes a search and retrieval facility which will enable an inquirer to identify, more easily, objects of particular interest and obtain a detailed printout.

  From today the computerised register can be consulted at the Victoria and Albert Museum (London), National Library of Scotland (Edinburgh), National Museum of Wales (Cardiff) and Ulster Museum (Belfast). Copies of the register in computer-readable format may also be purchased from the capital taxes office of the Inland Revenue for £10.

  The computerisation of this register and the other measures which I announced last year will make it easier for the public to enjoy the benefits of conditionally exempt property which Parliament intended.

  Charities
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on charities of the changes to the rate of advanced corporation tax announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 7 May 1993]: It is estimated that the tax credits payable to charities on dividends paid by United Kingdom companies will
  328
  eventually be reduced by about £50 million a year. Under the Budget proposals for transitional payments to charities to ease the change to the new rate of tax credit, the cost will rise progressively to this level over the period 1993–94 to 1998–99. In 1993–94 the cost to charities is expected to be about £5 million, on the assumption that about half of tax credits are claimed in the same year in which the dividend is paid. Details of the forecast transitional payments are given in paragraph 5·10 of the 1993–94 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Processing
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to legislate to ensure that meat processing companies have to label meat according to where the meat originated, rather than where it was transformed into other products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  We have no plans to do so.

  Rules on food labelling are harmonised at European Community level and already specifically require the place of origin to be given on food if its omission could mislead the consumer. Where a United Kingdom name is applied to imported products, then the place of origin is required to be given unless the product has undergone processing or treatment in the United Kingdom resulting in a substantial change. I consider that the present rules, together with the Government's initiatives to encourage retailers to provide this information where appropriate, provide sufficient information to enable consumers to make informed choices about the foods they buy.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to help farmers still affected by the radioactive fall-out from the Chernobyl explosion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Help to farmers who are still subject to post-Chernobyl sheep restrictions centres on "mark and release" arrangements, which enable essential controls to be applied with minimal disruption to normal farming practices, and compensation payments which mitigate any adverse economic effects.

  In addition, we continue to pursue our scientific monitoring and research efforts which are designed to identify areas for early derestriction and to enable potential technical remedies to be evaluated.

  IACS Forms
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the deadlines set for the return of completed integrated administration and control system forms in(a) Greece, (b) Luxembourg, (c) Italy and (d) for livestock farmers in Ireland.

  Mr. Curry
  The deadline for IACS applications is 15 May in Greece, Luxembourg and Italy. The deadline is 14 May in Ireland, but farmers with permanent pasture only may submit the IACS application with their first livestock aid application after 14 May but not later than 1 July.
  329
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received advocating an extension to the deadline for submitting completed integrated administration and control system forms.

  Mr. Curry
  We have received a significant number of representations pressing for an extension of the 15 May deadline. As we have previously made clear, however, the Commission have no proposals for an amendment to the EC Council regulation which lays down this date.

  Comfrey
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the action group for the relief of pain and distress was consulted specifically about the toxicity of comfrey prior to the announcement of the decision, to ban the sale of comfrey products.

  Mr. Soames
  My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) announced in March 1991 a full review of the safety and use of certain herbal substances, including comfrey. These substances had been removed from sale as medicines, for safety reasons, but could still be purchased as foods. A number of representations have been made in the years since that review was publicly announced. Comfrey was the first of these substances reviewed and the COT advice, together with that of the Food Advisory Committee, formed the basis for the action taken. That advice was unequivocal and there was no subsequent consultation prior to my announcement of 2 March 1993 of the voluntary withdrawal of certain comfrey products.

  Sea Defences, Beesands
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of the 50,000 tonnes of granite boulders which were brought in from Sweden and France as part of the sea defence scheme at Beesands, South Hams, Devon; and if the contract for the boulders was made available to British companies.

  Mr. Curry
  The supply, delivery and placement of granite boulders was part of a larger contract awarded by the National Rivers Authority for the construction of the Beesands sea defences. Because of the narrow lanes in the area concerned, it was a condition of the contract that most of the rock should be delivered by sea. Eight British companies submitted tenders to the National Rivers Authority, including Costains Civil Engineering Ltd., who were awarded the contract. As yet itemised final accounts are not available to the Ministry but the estimated cost of supplying, delivering and placing the boulders is £0·8 million out of a total scheme cost of some £1·8 million.

  Farmers' Earnings
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he measures the cash earnings of farmers.

  Mr. Curry
  Farmers' earnings may include income from both the farm business and other sources. Income from the farm is measured from sample surveys of the farm business and these also provide some information on non-farm incomes. Latest results from these surveys and the various definitions employed are published in Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1991–92.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  News Reporting (Restrictions)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to review the laws which impose restrictions on news reporting.

  Mr. Key
  I am not aware of any statutory restrictions on news reporting which do not bear equally on other forms of publication. Editors and journalists are subject to the law in the same way as any other individual.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to review the operation of listed building procedures.

  Mr. Key
  These procedures are under continuous review.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the care of listed historic buildings.

  Mr. Brooke
  This is primarily a matter for their owners. Local authorities have powers to take action where a building's preservation is in danger.

  Cricket
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support has been given to women's cricket through the Sports Council.

  Mr. Key
  The Sports Council of Great Britain's grant aid to the Women's Cricket Association in 1992–93 was a total of £45,000. The Sports Council has also worked closely with the association to help it improve its future programmes and policies.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to promote cricket in schools and adequate provision for the funding of such a programme.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Sports Council is providing £130,000 per year for 1992–93 and 1993–94 to enable the National Cricket Association to employ 10 part-time regional cricket development officers, one of whose tasks is to promote links between schools and local cricket clubs. The council also gives £16,000 a year to the English Schools Cricket Association. In addition, three awards totalling £117,000 have already been made by our new Sportsmatch scheme to projects which will benefit youth cricket.

  Responsibility for national curriculum physical education rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  Tourism
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to encourage local initiatives to increase tourism in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Government, through the English tourist board, has supported many local tourism initiatives in recent years, such as the one currently under way in my
  331
  hon. Friend's constituency. The recent review of Government tourism policy concluded that domestic tourism funding should increasingly be targeted on specific local areas.

  BBC Enterprises
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the status and powers of BBC Enterprises.

  Mr. Brooke
  BBC Enterprises Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, which has holdings in a number of other limited companies.

  Water-based Recreation (Safety)
  Mr. Noon
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss their role in the promotion and discussion of safety issues in connection with water-based recreation.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am happy to consider any any request for such a meting.

  Visitor Bed Nights
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the latest figures on visitor bed nights in(a) England and (b) Dorset.

  Mr. Key
  The latest available figures for visitor nights in Dorset and in England are from 1991:

  million

  England

  449·3

  Dorset

  18·8

  1991 was a generally disappointing year for the domestic tourism industry, largely because of exceptional factors such as the Gulf war. Full figures for 1992 are not yet available, but it is already clear that there was a significant recovery in the numbers of visitors, particularly those from overseas.

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much money has been raised from the public towards the restoration of Windsor castle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I understand that there is currently £25,000 in the independent trust fund established by Coutts and Company, Bankers.

  Hall I'th Wood Museum, Bolton
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to visit Hall I'th Wood museum, Bolton, to discuss the promotion of museums dealing with the nation's industrial heritage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I have no plans to visit Hall l'th Wood museum, though I am aware of its importance as part of 332
  our heritage; 1993 is Industrial Heritage Year, and I am aware that many museums in the region with important collections will be participating in the associated promotional activities.

  Creche Facilities (London)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what survey he has carried out of the extent of creche facilities at the major London tourist attractions.

  Mr. Key
  I have carried out no such survey.

  Goidelic and Brythonic Languages
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to encourage the continuing use of place names that have their origins in the Goidelic and Brythonic families of languages.

  Mr. Key
  None; this is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy towards cross-ownership of the media.

  Mr. Brooke
  To keep under review the ownership arrangements made under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  English Heritage (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what response his Department has made to the plans of English Heritage for London.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer to the reply that I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 23 April at columns 228–29.

  Press Regulation
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he plans to make a further announcement on his policy in respect of the law on privacy of controls on the press; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his policy on the future of the regulation of the press.

  Mr. Key
  The Government will set out their views on press self-regulation in their response to the report of the National Heritage Select Committee on Privacy and Media Intrusion. The opportunity will be taken to report progress on those recommendations of Sir David Calcutt relating to the protection of privacy which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in his statement to the House on 14 January that the Government accepted.

  Treasure Trove
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what legislation he is proposing in relation to treasure trove.
  333
  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend met the promoters of a proposed private Member's Bill earlier this year and indicated that in his view further consultations are needed, both within Government and beyond, before acceptable proposals for the reform of treasure trove legislation can be formulated. We have offered to assist with these consultation's as soon as resources permit.

  Public Libraries
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has for the preservation and improvement of public libraries.

  Mr. Key
  Following extensive consultation, I have drawn up the terms of reference for a fundamental review to assess the scope and value of public library services currently provided by local authorities in England and Wales; to draw up guidelines and a framework for local choice for what should constitute a "comprehensive and efficient service" provided by a modern public library system; to consider the desirability of any changes in the 334
  requirements of the Public Library and Museum Act 1964; and to identify key developments requiring national attention.

  St. Ethelburga's Church
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what provision is being made by Her Majesty's Government to assist in the repair and restoration of St. Ethelburga's church, damaged by the Bishopsgate bomb of 24 April, including the restitution of the interior murals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  English Heritage is providing direct practical assistance in assessing the damage and advising the Church authorities on possible options. It is for the latter to make proposals for the treatment of the building and to consider how any work might be financed. The special arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with the insurance industry last year to ensure the continued availability of insurance cover against terrorist damage are also relevant to cases of this kind.

DEFENCE

  Empty Properties, Plymouth
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it ks costing to provide security surveillance on the empty houses belonging to his Department in the vicinity of Mantle gardens, Barne Barton, Plymouth.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The security surveillance was arranged as a result of competitive tender and costs are commercial-in-confidence.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Security
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of whether the liaison and co-operation between the security service, special branch arid the various police forces is working to the maximum efficiency.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am satisfied that these arrangements are working effectively.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to ensure that when warnings are given as to an imminent security threat the maximum information is given to the relevant police area.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am satisfied that the current arrangements for disseminating information of this kind to the police, and within police forces, are working properly.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make sufficient funds available to the City of London police to establish road blocks as and when required;

  (2) what plans he has to increase funding of anti-terrorism operations (a) in general and (b) by the City of London police.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is for the police authority to determine the level of funding for its police force. This then attracts specific grant of 51 per cent. from my Department in the normal way. Chief officers decide how to allocate the resources which are available to them. Whether and when road checks should be mounted under the powers available to the police is an operational decision for the chief officer.

  At a recent meeting with the Lord Mayor and the commissioner of the City of London police I informed them that I would consider sympathetically any application I received from them for additional police officer posts or for capital spending on closed-circuit television in the city.

  Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Royal Commission on criminal justice to report.

  Mr. Jack
  We understand that the commission hopes to publish its report before the end of June.

  Terrorism
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for the future publication of statistics on the prevention of terrorism legislation in Great Britain.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department will continue to publish annually statistics on the operation of Prevention of Terrorism legislation in a Home Office Statistical Bulletin. The most recent publication, on 25 February 1993, included information for the whole of 1992. The next publication, due in February 1994, will contain statistics for the whole of 1993, including information about individual quarters during the year.

  Separate publication of quarterly figures will cease immediately. In 1979 the then Home Secretary undertook to publish quarterly bulletins following Lord Shackleton's 1978 review of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. The picture was then very different: In 1979 more than 850 people were detained in Great Britain and 48 extension orders were made. In 1992 the figures were 160 and 17 respectively. I have, therefore, decided that separate publication of quarterly figures is no longer justified.

  No other bulletins on criminal statistics appear so frequently. Apart from the cost of producing the quarterly bulletins, there are sound statistical reasons for not publishing so often. The quarterly figures are unstable and there is considerable variation from quarter to quarter. It is therefore misleading to deduce trends based on the most recent quarter's data alone. Publication of all four quarters' data together, however, helps to put any variations in context. In previous quarterly statistical bulletins, the figures have had to be revised for annual publication, in the light of new information received. By ceasing quarterly publication, the figures will be more reliable on first presentation.

  Prisoners (Mental Illness)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons within the prison system in the last year for which figures are available received care in long-term mental facilities within(a) one year, (b) two years and (c) three years of offending.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1992 the Secretary of State authorised the transfer of 611 mentally disordered prisoners to hospital under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for appropriate medical treatment. The information held centrally does not show what periods of time these prisoners had spent in custody before transfer to hospital, nor how long they remained in hospital after being transferred.

  Grants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each category of grant available from his Department to(a) local authorities, (b) voluntary organisations, (c) commercial organisations, (d) other organisations and (e) individuals in each of the past five years, the current year and projected for the 1994–95 financial year together with, for each year and in each case, (i) the date he published information or issued a circular providing detailed criteria (ii) the date the application form was made generally available (iii) the published closing date for applications (iv) any extended

  337
  and final application date applied by his Department (v) the date of announcement of his decisions and (vi) the date in which detailed offers were sent out by his Department.

  Mr. Jack
  Excluding payments made under contract, financial provision is available in 1993–94 for grants to be made in connection with the following programmes:

  Local authorities

  Police services

  Probation services

  Emergency planning

  Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966

  Safer Cities

  Drug prevention

  Probation and bail hostels

  Voluntary organisations

  Safer cities

  Crime concern

  Diversion from custody

  Victims of crime

  Immigration appeals assistance

  Prisoners abroad

  Probation and bail hostels

  Marriage guidance

  Reduction of racial disadvantage

  Drug prevention

  Refugees

  Women's Royal Voluntary Service

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Support to the voluntary sector including the promotion of voluntary activity and community development

  Accident prevention

  Information network focus on religious movements

  Prison after-care and supervision

  Repatriation of Commonwealth citizens

  Resettlement of offenders

  Commercial organisations

  Safer cities

  Other organisations

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Police Complaints Authority

  Gaming Board

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Safer cities

  Wartime broadcasting

  Probation training

  Probation and bail hostels

  Ethnic minority grants to training and enterprise councils

  Reduction of racial disadvantage

  Animals research

  Individuals

  The Data Protection Registrar

  Grants have been made in comparable categories over the past five years as well as in connection with:

  BBC

  Welsh Fourth Channel Authority

  Responsibility transferred to the Department of National Heritage in 1992–93

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission

  Broadcasting Standards Council

  Football Licensing Authority

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Responsibility transferred to the Employment Department in 1992–93

  338

  BBC

  Warning and monitoring Arson prevention

  Up to 1992–93

  Budgets for 1994–95 have not yet been settled.

  The criteria and information required before grants are approved are made available to applicant organisations in a variety of ways. The detailed information sought is not available centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Electoral Fraud
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about how many votes were lost to their lawful recipients through electoral fraud in total in 1992; what percentage of these were due to misuse of proxy votes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the number of voting offences is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans the Government have to review the format of the absent voter forms to prevent fraud by misappropriation of proxy votes; and what systems are in place to monitor the number of people claiming proxy votes in elections; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many voters by constituency voted by proxy in each of the last three general elections; and in each case what percentage difference this represented from 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the number of proxy voters is not collected centrally. Changes to absent voting applications forms are being considered by a working group of electoral registration officers and Home Office officials as part of our post-election review.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to increase the penalties for electoral fraud where the offence involves the deprivation of the vote to an elector who by reason of age, disability, language difficulties or other reason is particularly vulnerable to such fraud.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Penalties for election offences are set out in the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1985. We have no plans for any change.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to investigate possible electoral fraud regarding proxy votes in Brighton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the electoral registration officer in Brighton has investigated a number of complaints relating to proxy voting applications. One case was referred to the police who have decided that there was no evidence of any fraud.

  Mr. Leon Patterson
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Greater Manchester police force concerning the death of Leon Patterson in custody in Stockport police station; and if he will make a statement on the action to be taken against the individual officers concerned.
  339
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is a matter for the chief constable of Greater Manchester.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department. what estimate he has for(a) the cost of and (b) the time scale necessary for introducing a national identity card.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 6 May 1993]: In 1989 it was estimated that the cost (excluding initial capital costs) of issuing identity cards to all British citizens aged 12 or over could be around £350 million; and that the annual running costs of the system would probably be between £50 million and £100 million. The time scale necessary for introducing a card has not been estimated.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions (Payment Methods)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what meetings he has held, and what plans he has for meetings, with representatives of sub-postmasters to discuss his plan to encourage the payment of pensions into bank or building society accounts, rather than at post offices.

  Mr. Burt
  We have had no meetings with representatives of sub-postmasters but would consider any request for such a meeting.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of people receiving unemployment benefit in each month since May 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the form requested. The total number of people receiving unemployment benefit at quarterly dates from May 1991 to November 1992 is in the table.

  Date

  Numbers

  9 May 1991

  555,300

  8 August 1991

  608,400

  14 November 1991

  626,400

  13 February 1992

  694,700

  14 May 1992

  668,700

  13 August 1992

  642,300

  12 November 1992

  654,400

  Source: Quarterly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to introduce regulations to extend the period for which residential allowance may remain in payment to people who are absent from residential care and nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  On 2 April we announced that the rules affecting payment of residential allowance (RA) would be changed to extend the period for which the allowance may 340
  remain in payment to such people from six days to six weeks, where the person enters hospital, and three weeks for other absences.

  The regulations, introducing this change are being laid today.

  The main provisions are:
  The amending regulations will apply to people who may already have been absent for more than six days and for whom RA has already stopped. For such people RA will be reinstated from the date the amendment comes into force and will continue in payment for a period up to six or three weeks (as appropriate) from that date. The necessary procedure are already in hand to identify such cases.
  A resident may be absent for up to six weeks in hospital and/or up to three weeks elsewhere (eg six weeks in hospital and three weeks with relatives) before returning to the home. Different periods in hospital separated by 28 days or less will be treated as being one continuous period.
  The new provisions will apply to permanent residents who have left the home temporarily.

  Maternity Payments
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the future levels of maternity payments to women earning less than the national insurance threshold.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Women whose earnings are below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions do not qualify for maternity benefits. Without such a floor on entitlement, benefit payments could exceed earnings. The limit itself is regularly increased, but we have no plans to remove it.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the levels of community care grants as a proportion of total social security expenditure for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table.

  Expenditure on social security benefits

  Expenditure on community care grants

  Expenditure on community care grants as a proportion of benefit expenditure

  Year

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  47,332

  40

  0·08

  1989–90

  50,100

  59

  0·12

  1990–91

  56,236

  67

  0·12

  1991–92

  65,336

  79

  0·12

  11992–93

  74,135

  90

  0·12

  1 Estimated outturn.

  Source: Social Security Departmental Report—The Government's expenditure plans 1993–94 to 1995–96 (Cm. 2213).

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of letters received from hon. Members he has referred to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency in the last 12 months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1993 a total of 14,316 letters were received from hon. Members. Of these, 2,770–19 per cent.—were referred to Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the numbers and percentages of his staff in grades 1 to 5 who have(a) arts degrees, (b) science degrees, (c) technical degrees, (d) who are qualified accountants and (e) have post-graduate qualifications in management.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Disability Allowances
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for disability working allowance have been successful; hclw many have been unsuccessful; and how many are pending.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the Library.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will change the criteria by which claimants are eligible for disability working allowance so that take-up of the benefit can be improved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Further measures to encourage take-up were launched in April, including advertisements in the local press, mailings to advisers, and seminars for voluntary organisations. We have no plans to change the eligibility criteria.

  Income Support (Under-25s)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what policy considerations underlie the difference in income support for those aged 18 to 25 years and those over 25 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The levels of benefit for those aged 18 to 24 take account of the fact that a large majority of this group do not have the responsibility for running their own household; the lower rates also reflect the lower earnings expectations of this age group generally.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support recipients are aged between 18 and 24 years; and how many receive the reduced £34·80 rate.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are 810,000 recipients of income support aged 18 to 24. Of these, 520,000 receive the rate appropriate to a single claimant.

  Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry, May 1991.

  Notes:

  1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  2. The number of recipients at the given rate has been estimated. The actual rate for 1991 does not correspond to the rate mentioned in the question.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which living expenses the income support personal allowance(a) of £34·80 and (b) for those aged over 25 years is intended to provide.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Income support rates are intended to cover all normal day to day living expenses. They do not include separate amounts for specific items of expenditure.
  342
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of income support in each Benefits Agency office having customers in Derbyshire, have arrangements for(a) direct payment of housing costs, (b) attachment of community charge, (c) direct repayments to the social fund, (d) direct payments to the electricity companies and (e) direct payments to British Gas; and what are the total counts of (a) to (e) for customers who are residents of Derbyshire.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of Income Support and the Social Fund are matters for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 7 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking how many claimants of Income Support in each Benefits Agency office having customers in Derbyshire, have arrangements for (a) direct payment of housing costs, (b) attachment of community charge, (c) direct re-payments to the Social fund, (d) direct payments to the electricity companies and (e) direct payments to British Gas; and what are the total counts of (a) to (e) for customers who are residents of Derbyshire.

  The complete range of information is not available except at a disproportionate cost. This is because statistics are not routinely collected to reflect the area of residence of customers with deductions. Statistics will shortly be available giving the numbers of benefit recipients whose mortgage interest is paid directly to their mortgage lender and I will be pleased to write to you further with this information when it is available. Statistics relating to Social Fund are only available on a District Office basis. These statistics show the number of loan applications for which a repayment was made during March 1993 and do not necessarily equate to the number of applicants. All the other figures show the position as at 28 February 1993.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the official report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Appendix

  Deduction arrangements in Derbyshire

  Number

  Derby (London road)

  Water

  575

  Rent

  445

  Gas

  769

  Electricity

  9

  Community charge

  1,894

  TOTAL

  3,692

  Derby (Beeket street)

  Water

  410

  Rent

  210

  Gas

  626

  Electricity

  41

  Community charge

  1,767

  TOTAL

  3,045

  Ilkeston office

  Water

  217

  Rent

  158

  Gas

  674

  Electricity

  43

  Community charge

  1,548

  343

  Number

  TOTAL

  2,640

  Buxton office

  Water

  46

  Rent

  37

  Gas

  86

  Electricity

  5

  Community charge

  208

  TOTAL

  382

  Chesterfield office

  Water

  119

  Rent

  737

  Gas

  816

  Electricity

  16

  Community charge

  969

  TOTAL

  2,657

  Social Fund—repayments from income support

  Number

  Central Derbyshire district office

  2,572

  South Derbyshire district office

  1,677

  North Derbyshire district office

  2,027

  Stockport district office

  2,286

  Boarder Allowances
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from organisations and individuals in support of implementing a boarder premium for homeless families living in temporary accommodation; and what plans he has to meet the London Homelessness Forum.

  Mr. Burt
  We receive representations on many aspects of social security, including a number about the benefit arrangements for people living in temporary accommodation. I shall be meeting the London Homelessness Forum on 13 May 1993.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many boarder claimants received the eating out allowance in 1988–89; and what was the annual cost.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No data are available on either cost or the number of boarders who received an additional allowance for meals.

  Judicial Review
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made in the past year for judicial review of social fund decisions, and what percentage were successful.

  Mr. Scott
  Pursuant to my reply of 14 April 1993 at column 668 the following information was incorrect:"In 1992–93, five judicial review applications were made.
  So far, two of these have been heard: neither was successful.
  There have been 12·5 million applications for discretionary social fund payments since they became available in 1983: of these, only 25 have resulted in judicial review applications."

  The correct information is as follows:
  "In 1992–93 six judicial review applications were made. So far, two of these have been heard: neither was successful.
  344
  There have been over 12·5 million applications for discretionary social fund payments since they became available in 1988: of these, only 26 have resulted in judicial review applications."

  Benefits (Automatic Credit Transfer)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimates have been made about the amount of money which could be saved from the introduction of automatic credit transfer of benefit payments into claimants' bank accounts;

  (2) how many persons in receipt of social security benefits do not have a bank account.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The payment of social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 7 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many persons in receipt of social security benefits do not have bank accounts and what estimates have been made about the amount of money which could be saved from the introduction of automated credit transfer of benefit payments into claimants' bank accounts.

  A survey undertaken in 1991 estimated that 30 per cent. of Social Security recipients did not have a bank or building society account.

  Payment by automated credit transfer (ACT) has been available to many of our customers for several years. In line with a commitment made in the Citizens Charter, ACT is being made available for a wider range of benefits. The savings resulting from this extension will depend how many recipients select ACT as a method of payment. If all social security recipients were paid in this manner, this would lead to administrative savings of around £475m a year.

  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  British Council Initiatives
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives have been taken by the British Council to raise the profile of Northern Ireland abroad.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1986 the British Council, with financial support from the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, has operated an annual programme of cultural events, study hours and exhibitions designed to raise the profile of Northern Ireland in the United States. In 1992–93, this was complemented by a similar programme in Europe.

  Obscene Items
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of items seized on the grounds of obscenity by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mates
  The question of whether an item is obscene is a matter for the courts. Police records indicate that,
  345
  during the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, a total of 690 pornographic tapes were seized by the RUC. Other pornographic items, such as magazines, may have been seized by police at local level but no central record is maintained of such seizures.

  Health and Social Services Boards
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been lodged with the Office of Fair Employment and industrial

  Applications to OFE/Tribunals from 1 May 1990 to 30 April 1993

  Fair Employment

  Sex Discrimination

  Total

  Eastern Board

  Number of applications

  43

  37

  80

  Gone to tribunal

  1

  2

  3

  Pending

  20

  15

  35

  Withdrawn

  17

  9

  26

  Withdrawn following conciliated settlement

  5

  11

  16

  Northern Board

  Number of applications

  15

  15

  30

  Gone to tribunal

  14

  0

  4

  Pending

  6

  11

  17

  Withdrawn

  5

  4

  9

  Withdrawn following settlement or at hearing

  14

  0

  14

  Southern Board

  Number of applications

  19

  10

  29

  Gone to tribunal

  7

  9

  16

  Pending

  7

  9

  16

  Withdrawn

  12

  1

  13

  Withdrawn following conciliated settlement

  0

  0

  0

  Western Board

  Number of applications

  20

  6

  26

  Gone to tribunal

  0

  1

  1

  Pending

  6

  1

  7

  Withdrawn

  13

  0

  13

  Withdrawn following conciliated settlement

  1

  4

  5

  1 Figures included with numbers "gone to tribunal".

ENVIRONMENT

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for PA Cambridge Economic Consultants to publish an interim report on the costs and benefits of enterprise zones before the publication of its final evaluation exercise report in 1995.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  An interim report has been commissioned and a final draft is being considered by my Department. No decision on publication has yet been made.

  Recycling
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to publish a planning guidance note on the recycling of aggregate materials.

  Mr. Baldry
  The potential for increasing the use of waste and recycled materials as aggregates is a factor considered in the consultation draft of Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6 ("Guidelines for Provision of Aggregates 346
  tribunals alleging sex or religious discrimination by each of the area health and social services boards in Northern Ireland; and how many, and for what reason, have not proceeded to a hearing by the tribunal over the last three years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The requested information is given in the following table:

  in England and Wales"). Final guidance should be published in the summer. At present, I have no plans to issue separate guidance on recycling for aggregates.

  Acidic Aerosols
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take immediate steps to monitor and control acidic aerosols.

  Mr. Maclean
  Measurements of aerosol sulphate are made at 10 sites in the United Kingdom. We have no immediate plans to extend this monitoring to acid aerosols.

  Public Bodies
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 April,Official Report, column 426, if he will list the public bodies to which he makes appointments and the number of people appointed to each.

  Mr. Howard
  The bodies, and the number of appointments, are as listed. Sixty-one of these posts are currently unfilled.
  347

  Name of body

  Number of appointments

  A Advisory

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

  20

  Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment

  25

  Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances

  11

  Black Country Limestone Advisory Panel

  6

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  16

  Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council

  14

  Property Advisory Group

  15

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee

  21

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

  14

  B Executive

  Audit Commission

  17

  British Board of Agrement

  17

  Commission for the New Towns

  13

  Countryside Commission

  11

  English Nature

  14

  Housing Action Trust Liverpool

  12

  Housing Action Trust North Hull

  11

  Housing Action Trust Waltham Forest

  11

  Housing Corporation

  15

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  4

  Letchworth Garden City Corporation

  6

  Local Government Commission

  15

  London Pensions Fund Authority

  8

  London Residuary Body

  4

  National Rivers Authority

  12

  Rural Development Commission

  8

  United Kingdom Eco-Labelling Board

  15

  Urban Development Corporation Birmingham Heartlands

  13

  Urban Development Corporation, Black Country

  13

  Urban Development Corporation, Bristol

  12

  Urban Development Corporation, Central Manchester

  10

  Urban Development Corporation, Leeds

  11

  Urban Development Corporation, London Docklands

  13

  Urban Development Corporation, Merseyside

  13

  Urban Development Corporation, Plymouth

  12

  Urban Development Corporation, Sheffield

  12

  Urban Development Corporation, Teesside

  12

  Urban Development Corporation, Trafford Park

  13

  Urban Development Corporation, Tyne and Wear

  13

  C Proposed Executive NDPBs

  Housing Action Trust, Birmingham, Castlevale

  11

  Housing Action Trust, Brent

  11

  Housing Action Trust, Tower Hamlets

  11

  D Nationalised Industry

  British Waterways Board

  7

  E Tribunal

  Rent Assessment Panels (13)

  466

  Council Tax
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses/dwellings are there in each council tax band in the Chelmsford parliamentary constituency; and how many people in each council tax band qualify for the 25 per cent. single person's discount.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information for Chelmsford parliamentary constituency is not available. However, comparable information for the area of Chelmsford district council is available, as follows:348

  Council tax band

  Number of dwellings

  Number of single person discounts

  A

  3,980

  2,430

  B

  7,890

  4,150

  C

  19,110

  5,210

  D

  14,510

  2,770

  E

  8,660

  1,240

  F

  4,320

  490

  G

  3,230

  370

  H

  250

  30

  Total

  61,960

  16,680

  Notes:

  Totals may not sum owing to rounding. The figures for numbers of dwellings reflect the valuation list sent to Chelmsford district council as at 1 December 1992. Estimates for the number of single person discounts are derived from the number of dwellings shown on the community charge register at 1 December 1992 as containing only one non-student chargepayer on 1 June 1992.

  Fanfare for a New World Concert
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the circumstances which led to the staging of the Fanfare for a New World concert in Liverpool in 1992; on what basis a £2 shell company was appointed to oversee the event; what creditors are now seeking satisfaction from the Merseyside development corporation; and what representations he has received about the matter.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Fanfare for a New World concert was an important element in the Grand Regatta Columbus celebrations held in Liverpool last summer. From the earliest stages of planning the grand regatta, it had been recognised that a major flagship event of this kind would help to attract visitors and media attention to the city.

  The Merseyside development corporation took the decisions to act as sponsors, rather than organisers, of the concert following approaches made to them by a private sector consortium. This consortium, who had worked for them in various capacities since 1986, included a well-known London-based opera impresario and the organiser of the successful Symphony for A Spire at Salisbury Cathedral. In the light of the proven track record of the members of this consortium, and following a thorough appraisal of the proposed budget, a legal agreement was drawn up which, among other things, set a maximum level of sponsorship for the event. This maximum level was increased shortly before the concert when the corporation was advised that further sponsorship from the private sector had not been secured at the expected level.

  I understand that the Merseyside development corporation has received no direct approaches from creditors. Apart from the hon. Member's question, the only representations that my right hon. and learned Friend has received are three further questions tabled by, and a letter from, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).

  Council Tax
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the average number of days it takes his Department to respond to a written request from
  349
  an hon. Member or a member of the general public for copies of his Department's explanatory booklets on the council tax; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what performance target he has set for his Department to respond to written requests from hon. Members and members of the general public for copies of his Department's explanatory booklets on the council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 7 May 1993]: The average number of days it takes my Department's contractor to respond to a written request from an hon. Member or a member of the general public is currently about 10 working days. This period allows for inward and outbound postal transit times.

  The performance target for response, be it to an hon. Member or a member of the public, is that a request be fulfilled as quickly as reasonably possible, while seeking value for money.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Old Palace Yard
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee when the agreement for use by the House of Commons of Old Palace Yard expires.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  New accommodation to house the present occupants of 6–7 Old Palace Yard will become available from the end of October 1993 onwards. It is planned that this House will have vacated the building by March 1994.

  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee whether English Heritage was consulted about the works to be carried out at 7 Old Palace Yard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  This is no longer a matter for this House. It is now one for the other place.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the numbers and percentages of his staff in grades I to 5 who have(a) arts degrees, (b) science degrees, (c) technical degrees, (d) who are qualified accountants and (e) have post-graduate qualifications in management.

  Mr. Norris
  The information readily available from our manual staff records is as follows:(a) (b) (c): 67 staff in my Department in grades 1 to 5 have an arts degree, representing 45 per cent. of the total in these grades.
  Fifty-six staff in these grades have a science or technical degree, representing 37 per cent. of the total.
  (d) Two persons in these grades are qualified accountants —1·3 per cent. of the total.
  (e) No staff in these grades have postgraduate qualifications in management.

  Motorcycles
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the proposed EC anti-tampering directive 350
  on motorbikes on (a) the cost of running a motorcycle, (b) the price of new bikes and (c) the United Kingdom's performance and racing industry;

  (2) if his Department will oppose the EC's proposed anti-tampering directive on motorbikes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The EC Commission has not yet presented a proposal for a directive to the Council of Ministers for consideration. It would be premature to take a view on the United Kingdom's approach and to make an assessment of the likely effects of the measure before they do so.

  London and South-East
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the total amount of support given by his Department to(a) London Transport and (b) Network SouthEast for each year from 1982–83 to 1992–93, estimated, distinguishing between current and capital expenditure.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows.

  Government grant to London Transport and Network SouthEast:

  London transport

  £ million 1993–94 prices Year

  Capital

  Current

  Total

  1982–831

  336

  216

  552

  1983–841

  276

  296

  572

  1984–851

  192

  236

  428

  1985–86

  297

  187

  484

  1986–87

  333

  94

  427

  1987–88

  269

  65

  334

  1988–89

  222

  28

  250

  1989–90

  291

  58

  349

  1990–91

  502

  94

  596

  1991–92

  557

  130

  687

  1992–932

  664

  241

  905

  1 Grant paid by GLC.

  2 Excludes DLR. In 1992–93 the Department of the Environment paid grant of £149 million for DLR.

  Network SouthEast

  £ million 1993–94 prices Year

  Capital

  Current

  Total

  1987–88

  —

  —

  230

  1988–89

  —

  —

  140

  1989–90

  —

  —

  86

  1990–91

  —

  —

  146

  1991–92

  165

  190

  355

  1992–93

  454

  121

  575

  In addition to investment funded from Government support, both industries can also fund investment from their own resources. The figures for Network SouthEast show Public Service Obligation Grant to Network SouthEast from its creation in 1987–88. Due to accounting changes, no directly comparable figures for capital/current split are available before 1991–92.
  351

  Local Authority Buses
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce legislation to require local authorities to dispose of their interests in bus companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I cannot, of course, anticipate what may be in the legislative programme for next session, but we do intend in this Parliament to fulfil our pledge given before the last General Election that we will take action to privatise the remaining local authority bus companies.

  Meanwhile, I am encouraged that there have been three sales in the last six months, Merseybus, Strathclyde and Preston Borough Transport, and I know that many other local authorities have expressed a desire to transfer their public transport companies to the private sector.

  Local Authority Airports
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce legislation to require local authorities to dispose of their interests in airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government believe that privatisation would bring benefits to local authority airports. It is for the local authorities who own airports to decide whether to dispose of their interests, taking into account the needs of those who live in the areas concerned and the customers who use the airports. In taking those decisions they will be aware that if they wish to see their airports continue to develop, they will need to use internal resources or look to the private sector to fund major expenditure programmes, either through joint ventures or outright sale.

  Buses and Trains (Elasticity Figures)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the patronage elasticity of bus mileage.

  Mr. Freeman
  Available studies suggest that an elasticity of around 0·5 is typical. However, figures will vary widely between areas and according to the form the extra bus mileage takes; it might involve, for example, higher frequencies on existing routes or the introduction of new routes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the bus patronage elasticity of changes in the level and in the rate of growth of car ownership.

  Mr. Freeman
  Available studies suggest that an aggregate elasticity of around —0·5 is typical. However, relationships in particular areas will differ according to individual circumstances and economic conditions. These overall relationships may not apply to short-term changes in car ownership.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the patronage elasticity of service frequency for buses and for trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  For buses, available studies suggest a central range of 0·4 to 0·6, but estimates vary from 0·16 to 1–0. Figures will vary widely depending on factors such as the frequency of the current service. Peak period demand is likely to be more responsive to a change in frequency than is off peak demand.
  352
  For trains, I understand that British Rail does not normally use a standard service elasticity figure. In forecasting demand, service frequencies are considered along with journey time and other attributes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the price elasticity of bus fares.

  Mr. Freeman
  Available studies suggest that an elasticity of —0·3 is typical, with a range of perhaps 0·1 to —0·6. Figures will vary depending on factors such as the purpose of the journey, its length, and the extent to which alternative transport is available.

  Sunken Container Ships
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has received to date of the locations of sunken container ships that are floating submerged in the world's ocean waterways; what action he has taken to warn United Kingdom shipping companies and their ships masters of their reported whereabouts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has received no information of any such cases. However, masters have an international obligation to report the sighting of a dangerous derelict vessel or any other direct dangers to navigation to all ships in the vicinity and to the appropriate shore authority. Navigation warnings will be issued by the hydrographic office responsible for the area concerned.

HEALTH

  St. Helier's NHS Trust
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated in Sutton under the St. Helier's NHS trust since it was set up.

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

  Patients treated by the St. Helier NHS trust 1991–92

  Number

  Ordinary admissions

  20,986

  Day cases

  4,643

  Out-patients

  202,025

  National Disability Information Project
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress made with the national disability information project; what applications for resource support have been received from federations of local information providers from the national disability information project fund; and what allocations of resources have been made.

  Mr. Yeo
  We received 101 applications from federations to become pilot sites. 12 pilot sites were selected, with funding as follows:

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Berkshire

  18,400

  33,590

  36,400

  Birmingham

  70,850

  62,500

  64,344

  Devon

  26,100

  38,500

  51,000

  353

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  North East Yorkshire

  24,161

  59,697

  72,873

  Gateshead

  48,000

  62,820

  67,380

  Gloucestershire

  30,301

  38,100

  37,300

  Kent

  64,000

  53,660

  65,000

  Manchester

  19,931

  54,700

  70,000

  Norfolk

  16,565

  49,631

  62,500

  Oldham

  37,589

  56,119

  81,982

  Southwark

  21,338

  49,282

  65,450

  Walsall

  32,963

  46,850

  48,000

  The project is being co-ordinated on the Department's behalf by the Policy Studies Institute (PSI). The PSI report that the pilots have made important developments in the dissemination of information to disabled people. A formal evaluation is being carried out by the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs, who will' report to the Department of Health after the project ends in 1994–95.

  NHS Security Review
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the report of the recent review into security and crime prevention in the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have today placed copies of the full report and executive summary in the Library.

  Nurse-to-Bed Ratio
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 5 February,Official Report, column 381, how many (a) beds and (b) nurses were available in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Total numbers of average available beds and nursing and midwifery staff in the NHS—England 1979–1990–91

  Years

  Average available beds

  Nurses and midwives (excl agency) (whole-time equivalent)

  1979

  361,670

  354,420

  1980

  355,980

  365,900

  1981

  351,500

  388,010

  1982

  348,100

  394,040

  1983

  343,090

  394,690

  1984

  334,510

  393,740

  1985

  325,490

  397,030

  1986

  315,710

  397,240

  1987–88

  297,340

  397,910

  1988–89

  282,900

  397,840

  1989–90

  270,310

  398,050

  1990–91

  255,440

  395,360

  1991–92

  242,360

  392,200

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten except for the 1980 nurses and midwives figure which is rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. From 1987 onwards, the daily available beds figure is averaged over the year whereas the nurses and midwives figures are as at September of each year.

  Source: Department of Health 1979–1986 return; 1987–88 —1990–91 KH03 return and Department of HealthNon-Medical Manpower Census.

  Angiosarcoma of the Liver
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the small area health statistics unit will complete its survey into the geographical incidence of angiosarcoma of the liver in Great Britain in relation to vinyl chloride plants.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The small area health statistics unit will complete its vinyl chloride study later this year.

  Small Area Health Statistics Unit
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports from the small area health statistics unit have been published other than those relating to cancer.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 8 February at column 74.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual budget for the small area health statistics unit for each year since 1987; what proportion of the annual budget for the small area health statistics unit is provided by her Department; how the remaining budget is provided; and how many small area health statistics unit investigations have resulted in prosecutions against employers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The annual budgets for the small area health statistics unit (SAHSU) since 1987 and the proportions contributed by the sponsoring Departments are shown in the tables.

  Contribution

  Per cent.

  Department of Health

  40

  Department of the Environment

  33

  Health and Safety Executive

  10

  Scottish Office

  10

  Welsh Office

  5

  DHSS (NI)

  2

  Financial Year

  Budget £'.000

  1987–88

  188

  1988–89

  310

  1989–90

  350

  1990–91

  417

  1991–92

  517

  1992–93

  538

  We are not aware of any SAHSU investigations resulting in prosecutions against employers.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has available of mortality rates resulting from air pollution.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The recording of mortality statistics in the United Kingdom uses the International Classification of Diseases. This does not specify air pollution as a diagnosis.

  Cancer
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has conducted into socio-economic factors in cancers, by cancer type.
  355
  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not conduct research specifically into socio-economic factors in cancers. The Department's estimated expenditure on research into cancer in the financial year 1992–93 is £4,188,733. Several of the projects being undertaken cover socio-economic factors as part of the wider research.

  Notified cases of tuberculosis (TB) dysentery/viral hepatitis 1983–1992 for Southampton and Hampshire.

  Southampton

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  TB (all forms)

  24

  16

  26

  21

  21

  22

  21

  21

  27

  21

  Dysentery (Amoebic and Bacillary)

  8

  11

  3

  4

  12

  37

  1

  8

  5

  15

  Viral Hepatitis (all forms)

  21

  13

  8

  7

  20

  38

  26

  15

  11

  14

  Hampshire

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  TB (all forms)

  98

  63

  92

  66

  62

  79

  58

  50

  60

  43

  Dysentery (Amoebic and Bacillary)

  45

  58

  30

  27

  48

  68

  20

  27

  28

  69

  Viral Hepatitis (all forms)

  119

  69

  68

  49

  86

  160

  103

  78

  53

  49

  11992 data is provisional.

  Access to Health Records Act 1990
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to make regulations under sections 8(2), (3) and (10)(1) of the Access to Health Records Act 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no immediate plans to make such regulations. Any complaint that a hospital has not complied with the Act can be dealt with under the existing hospital complaints procedures. In all cases, complaints can be taken direct to the courts. We will, however, continue to keep the need for regulations under review.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the numbers and percentages of her staff in grades one to five who have(a) arts degrees, (b) science

  Arts

  Science

  Arts and Science

  Tech

  Qualified Accountants

  No.

  No.Per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  UG1

  1

  50

  1

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UG2

  4

  80

  1

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UG3

  8

  38

  12

  57

  —

  —

  1

  50

  —

  —

  UG4

  7

  26

  18

  67

  2

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UG5

  60

  27

  129

  58

  12

  50

  3

  10

  2

  10

  Laboratory Technicians
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if laboratory technicians working for national health service hospitals are designated as medical laboratory scientific officers; and if such persons are required to have MLSO training before they can apply for employment in the NHS as laboratory technicians.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Medical laboratory scientific officer (MLSO) is a term used to describe staff who perform a certain range of technical, analytical and investigative functions in national health service clinical laboratories. Pay and grading agreements of the NHS professional and technical staffs B Whitley council require staff discharging that range of MLSO functions to meet the qualification

  Infections, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) tuberculosis, (b) dysentery and (c) viral hepatitis were reported in (i) Southampton and (ii) Hampshire for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  degrees, (c) technical degrees, (d) who are qualified accountants and (e) have post-graduate qualifications in management.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  These figures exclude people seconded into the Department, which includes a number of experienced accountants and national health service managers. We do not collate centrally information on the numbers of staff who have post-graduate qualifications in management, but all members of staff in these grades attend in-house and external management courses, some of which lead to formal qualifications.

  The percentages in this table relate to all staff in the grade, not just those with recorded qualifications.

  and training requirements of and be registered as medical laboratory technicians under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act (1960).

  Cataract Operations, Hull
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now make it her policy to collect information about the current waiting time for cataract operations at the Hull royal infirmary.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. Information on waiting times for ophthalmology treatment, which includes cataract operations, in district health authorities and national health service trusts is available routinely in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", the latest edition of which is available in the Library.

  NHS Land
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the quantity and value of land held by the national health service in(a) 1990 and (b) the latest available date.

  Mr. Sackville
  The area of land held by the national health service at 31 December 1989 was estimated at 16,719 hectares. The equivalent figure for I April 1992 (the latest available) is estimated to be 16,158 hectares.

  The total existing use value of NHS land and buildings as at 31 December 1989 was £23,447,056,000. The apportionment between land and building values at 31 December 1989 is not available from centrally held returns. The total existing use value of NHS land and buildings as at 1 April 1992 is estimated at £21,447,463,000, of which £5,755,453,;000 may be taken to relate to the landholding.

  Qa Business Services
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings she has held, and what plans she has to hold meetings with representatives of former employees of Qa Business Services to discuss their loss of pension rights.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. I have offered to meet the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and other hon. Members to hear representations on behalf of constituents affected by the collapse of Qa Business Services.

  Purchasing Development
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who she intends to consult when considering the establishment of the national purchaser development team.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are undertaking a series of meetings with all regional health authorities and the chairmen of district health authorities and family health 358
  services authorities to discuss progress on purchasing. We will consider what further action might be needed to support the development of purchasing in the light of these discussions.

  Elderly Patients
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring of the work of general practitioners in respect of their care of over-75-year-old patients is being undertaken; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Family health services authorities are responsible for monitoring of general practitioners locally, in respect of all services provided by GPs.

  In addition, the Department of Health has commissioned research from the centre for primary care research (CPCR) in Manchester into the operation of the 75+ health check.

  The Department also commissioned a survey from MORI into patients' reactions to the new GP contract. The MORI survey (conducted in 1991) found that almost four out of five of those 75+ patients offered a check-up took advantage of it and nine out of 10 of those who had a check-up found it useful.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total Government expenditure on HIV/AIDS medical research; and if she will provide an estimate of total expenditure from all sources on HIV/AIDS medical reseach.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 April 1993, c. 280]: The cumulative total of Government funding for AIDS medical research for the financial years 1986–87 to 1992–93 is £66,170,000. This represents the sum made available to the Medical Research Council (M RC) for a directed programme of AIDS research covering vaccine development and to improve our understa-nding of the natural history of the virus.

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

General Practitioners: Complaints System
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total number of complaints against GPs waiting to be heard by family health service authorities in the United Kingdom at the last time for which figures are available, how this compares with 12 months previously, and what was the average waiting time for such complaints to be heard at both dates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, this information is not available. If the noble Lord has a particular case in mind, perhaps he would write to me.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that nurses, doctors and health visitors are much concerned about the complaints system, particularly as the health ombudsman is not the responsible body? Can the situation be considered?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government are aware that there are some reservations about the current appeals and complaints system. My noble friend the Minister for Health is looking to see whether a review would be valuable in this instance.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we are pleased to hear that there may be a review of the complaints system. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to praise the good conciliation work that is sponsored by family health services authorities. That is one reason that we have an extremely low rate of litigation by patients against doctors compared, for instance, with the United States. Will the noble Baroness say what percentage of complaints is processed through the conciliation procedure? What percentage of cases goes to family health services committees to be heard?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the percentage is very small. In fact the only figures that I have are for the cases that are heard by the family health services authorities service committees. I do not have the number of complaints that are made initially but do not go that far. However, of all the complaints that are made, only 26 per cent. are upheld.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, why is the figure asked for in the Question not available?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, those figures are kept locally at FHSA level.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if the department is examining the situation, will it ensure that a more
968
streamlined method is adopted which would be welcomed by doctors, nurses and all people involved in the health service? They believe that streamlining can be achieved. Will the department at least consider that possibility?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. Only very recently the management executive set targets for family health services authorities to ensure that complaints are dealt with expeditiously and the whole process completed in six months.

BBC Charter: Campaign Expenditure
2.40 p.m.
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the limit of the BBC's expenditure on campaigning for the continuation of its Royal Charter.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, none.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that informative reply. Would he not agree, though, that for the corporation to take out full page advertisements in such magazines as Time at a cost of £21,000 is a ridiculous waste of money?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we welcome the BBC's initiative in holding meetings round the country to hear people's views about its future. When the Government consultation document was published, it set out a framework of questions for discussion. At that time the BBC published its own proposals. Since then the BBC has been consulting widely to prepare its response to the Government's document. I understand that the BBC intends to publish it shortly.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that under the Royal Charter the BBC receives billions of pounds of the people's money to spend as they wish? Is it not quite wrong that it should use much of that money in order to perpetuate its affluence?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the BBC charter allows the BBC to broadcast its opinions on matters of broadcasting policy. Of course, editorial control of programme content and scheduling are matters for the BBC. I understand that the cost of its recent public consultation has been about £200,000.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the positive tone of his reply and agree with it? Does he also agree that the BBC is the best public broadcasting service in the world? Is it therefore not only natural but to be applauded that it should spend some of its resources on advertising that service and in order to defend itself from attacks on its charter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I say, we welcome the BBC's publication of its proposals and its responses. We wish to consider carefully the BBC's contribution to the debate and all the other responses before decisions are made on the future of the corporation.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the charter of the BBC refers to a licence from the Secretary of State. Is that expenditure licensed by the Secretary of State?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that the licence referred to is the licence fee which the BBC collects. That fee produces about £1.5 billion a year; that is £83 a year for a colour television, which works out at about 23 pence per day. That is quite good value for money.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, are there grounds for believing that the present system is probably the best that can reasonably be devised for the governance of public service broadcasting? Under those circumstances, one must agree with the Minister that if the BBC believes that that is the case, it is fully entitled to spend a reasonable sum of money on stating its point of view.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is exactly what the current review is about. We have made it clear in our consultation document that all options for the future of the BBC would be considered.
With regard to the licence fee, we have also said that no one has yet devised a better way of funding the BBC that we have seen.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, is the noble Viscount yet able to tell the House whether the Department of National Heritage has taken the decision that the BBC should be governed by a further Royal Charter or whether it should be by legislation of this House and the other place? That would place the BBC on the same statutory footing as the other broadcasting authorities in the United Kingdom.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have made no such decision. It is only a few days since the closing date for responses. The present charter has over three-and-a-half years to run and we shall bring forward proposals early next year.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, despite recent publicity, many like myself believe that the BBC should continue more or less in its present form? However, in relation to the £200,000 which is being spent on a public consultation exercise, to which most people would not object, may we be assured that the BBC will listen to what the public say and, if possible, act on much of it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I presume that that is why the BBC are having the consultation, so that they will listen to the views put to them. The Government have always taken the need for economical use of resources into account in the arrangements for setting up the future of the BBC.

Churches: Bomb Damage, 24th April
2.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they propose to give to churches damaged in the terrorist attack in the City of London on 24th April.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, English Heritage is providing direct practical assistance in assessing the damage and advising on possible options for the treatment of the buildings concerned. The Government made special arrangements with the insurance industry last year to ensure the continued availability of insurance cover against terrorist damage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Does he agree that a difficult situation has arisen as a result of the serious damage done to St Ethelburga's and to two other City churches? Will he recognise that as the Government are now involving themselves in the problem of terrorism insurance, the Church authorities are finding it extremely difficult with many churches to pay the additional insurance cover? Will his right honourable friend consider getting his officials to discuss the problem with officials of the City corporation and the Churches?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, on behalf of my department, I am sure that we would be happy to have discussions with the City corporation and the Church authorities, if they so wish. It is, of course, for the Church authorities to consider the various options in the first instance and to put forward proposals. I am sure that the Church authorities will consider all possibilities with regard to the churches.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the future of St Ethelburga's is subject to the conclusions of the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, into the future of City churches set up by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London? However, subject to those findings, will the Minister agree that if the church is not used as a working church and if it has no viable congregation, many people would like to see it restored as a shrine symbolising our refusal to submit to the IRA barbarians? In that case, will the Government commit themselves to contributing to any appeal?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that the inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, has not yet produced any result. Of course, it will be a matter for the Church authorities. There are many different views on what should happen to the site and I point out to your Lordships the letters in The Times on Saturday. One from the Chairman of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings suggested that:
"This society believes that the most positive outcome of the tragedy would be to develop the site as an open space for City workers".
The reverend F.H. Stevens suggested that:
"New churches need to be built in dockland areas"
and other areas. Obviously people have many different views on what should happen to the site and the church. It will be up to the Church authorities to decide.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if he is looking for a shrine for this admirable purpose, there are 37 other working churches in the

971
City, which is only one square mile in extent? To restore St Ethelburga's to its original condition would be to perpetrate an architectural and archaeological fraud, costing a great deal of money. Given that the site of the church is extremely valuable, should not that money be realised and applied to the poor, who were closest to the heart of the Saviour for whom the church was built?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point, which all adds to the debate. Of course, churches in use are covered by ecclesiastic exemption from normal listed building controls. However, it appears that because St Ethelburga's has been closed for worship, it could be subject to listed building controls. In normal circumstances where a building is subject to those controls, and where more than 50 per cent. of its structure or architectural or historic interest is lost through damage outside the owner's control, the Government's view is that it would not be reasonable to require full reinstatement.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Church of England is grateful for the varied suggestions that have been made? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London will take them all into account. Were he able by the conventions of the House to do so, he would express that view. Will the Minister convey our gratitude to noble Lords for their considerate and imaginative response to the Question?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I certainly shall. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for the right reverend Prelate to be standing today where I am, answering the Question.

Business
2.49 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Maximum Number of Judges (No.2) Order 1993 and the Civil Legal Aid (Scope) Regulations 1993 will be taken.

Education Bill
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 245:
Before Clause 217, insert the following new clause:
972
("Abolition of corporal punishment extended to independent schools
.—(1) Section 47 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (abolition of corporal punishment) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (5) there is substituted the following subsection—
"(5) In this section "pupil" means a person—

(a) for whom education is provided—

(i) at a school maintained by a local education authority;

(ii) at a special school not so maintained;

(iii) at a grant-maintained school; or

(iv) at an independent school; or

(b) for whom primary or secondary education, or education which would be primary or secondary education if it were provided full-time, is provided by a local education authority otherwise than at school;

but does not include any person who is aged eighteen or over."
(3) Subsections 6, 7, 8 and 9 are omitted.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the addition of the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady David, Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lady Seear, demonstrates distinguished all-party support for the abolition of corporal punishment to be extended to pupils in independent schools.
The current legislation, unbelievably, still allows corporal punishment of pupils attending private day and boarding schools. The purpose of the new clause is to amend the Education (No. 2) Act so as to extend abolition to cover pupils in such schools.
Legislation which came into effect in August 1987 ended corporal punishment in all state supported education. In addition to covering all state education, it covered private schools which received government grants. It also protects any pupils in private schools whose fees are paid in part or in whole by the state through the assisted places scheme or by local authorities. The Government have accepted that corporal punishment has no place in the child care environment. They used the Children Act to outlaw it in all children's homes, including private homes, and also in foster care and day care. The Act obliges small boarding schools to register as children's homes, and as such they too are prohibited from using physical punishment.
No educational, child welfare or child protection organisation favours the use of institutional corporal punishment. Most, if not all, well-known independent schools abandoned it some time ago. The Headmasters' Conference (HMC) supports abolition. The Council of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools strongly endorsed the view that corporal punishment should not be used in IAPS schools as long ago as 1987.
The Elton committee—I am sorry not to see the noble Lord in his place—on discipline in the schools commissioned a review of research findings on the effectiveness of corporal punishment. At paragraph 4.47 the Elton Report concluded that:
"there is little evidence that corporal punishment was in general an effective deterrent either to the pupils punished or to other pupils. There is also some evidence that standards of behaviour tended to be worse in schools which made more frequent use of corporal punishment when differences in the

973
nature of the catchment area had been taken into account. The argument that corporal punishment reduced the need for other sanctions is also not supported by the evidence".
I am very glad to see the noble Lord in his place now that I have mentioned his name.
In the past few years there have been a number of scandals involving serious physical and sexual abuse of children in private schools. In each of two major cases corporal punishment had been a permitted and much used sanction. It is likely (is it not?) that the schools most concerned to keep corporal punishment in the face of strong professional disapproval are those which may seriously abuse its use. Organisations representing the independent sector suggest that very few private schools now use corporal punishment.
I do not intend to go into any detail about the prevalence of corporal punishment in the private sector. Prevalence is not relevant to the arguments of principle against its use. Suffice it to say that it exists in a small number of private schools and the incidents to which I have referred show that it may still be used, and they justify the bringing in of an amendment to abolish its use.
I turn to the international conventions. In December 1991, the Government recognised the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which obliges them to take active steps to protect children from,
"all forms of physical or mental violence",
and to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner,
"consistent with the child's human dignity".
Clearly, unless there is legislation to abandon corporal punishment altogether, the Government are likely to be in breach of the United Nations convention. This amendment enables the Government to comply, and I hope that they are accordingly grateful.
I come now to the European Court of Human Rights. I draw attention to Amendment No. 246ZA in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, which has been grouped with mine. His amendment is less rigorous than mine and I must leave him to argue his case. I say at this stage only that my amendment would make it impossible for the Government to be in breach of the Court of Human Rights, although his amendment, or so it seems to me, would leave the court to determine, on any reference, whether a particular case in particular circumstances was or was not in breach of Article 3.
If the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, only were put into the Bill, the Government would still have a duty to ensure that corporal punishment in independent schools does not breach Article 3, and the current uncertainty would therefore persist.
An opinion by a very distinguished silk, Mr. David Pannick, concludes that the judgment of the recent Costello-Roberts case makes it,
"difficult in practice to permit the retention of corporal punishment in independent schools without substantial risk of breach of Article 3 of the Convention".
My amendment would relieve the Government of that difficult task. I should have thought, again, that on that ground alone they would be grateful. However, the Government still intend to retain corporal
974
punishment for funded pupils on grounds of parental choice and the position under English law which has not been the subject of any adverse finding in Strasbourg. That is the strict truth. But I must go on to say that the Government "bought off— a reference to Strasbourg in the case of Y v. United Kingdom, which was referred to the court by the Commission. The Commission had found that the punishment which Y had received breached Article 3.
The case of Y was referred to the European Court of Human Rights by the Commission. As I said, the Commission had found that the caning which Y had received breached Article 3. But in October 1992—the offence had been committed in 1983—the court announced that it would not be hearing the case because Y had reached an agreement with the Government. The Government had agreed to pay to Y £8,000, plus his legal costs amounting to £12,000, in all £20,000—I quote from the European Court:
"on condition that the case is withdrawn from the Court and no further cases are instituted against the Government in respect of this matter in any national or international court".
Buying off a case which is prima facie likely to breach Article 3 surely amounts to an admission of guilt on the part of the Government. It is quite clear from the judgment in the recent Costello-Roberts case that had the more severe punishment that Y had received been considered by the court, the court would have found it to be in breach of Article 3.
I hope the Committee will agree that it is an improper use of public funds to buy off cases that the Government believe may breach the convention. I hope it will also agree that my amendment, rather than the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, should be put into the Bill so that the Government are not tempted to buy off any further cases and there is no doubt about our compliance with both the United Nations convention and the European Court. If this amendment is agreed, we shall at last have prohibited corporal punishment in all schools, both public and private, within the country. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: It is with very great pleasure that I support the amendment. In our time beating children seems to be completely out of date. It can lead to much cruelty. It has no constructive influence on a child in learning and understanding how to manage its life. It belongs to another age, which I am glad to know is past, since corporal punishment is not allowed in public sector cases but only in so-called private cases. That shows that on occasion the public sector is well ahead of private practice.
In 1987 legislation was passed relating to the use of corporal punishment. Opinion polls which were conducted throughout the country by the Scottish Law Commission and by Gallup showed that between 85 per cent. and 95 per cent. of parents believed that it should be illegal to strike a child. In 1989 the Children Act prohibited the use of corporal punishment in all children's homes, including private

975
establishments in local authority areas. In addition, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by the Government in 1991.
We should take this opportunity today to bring our law up to date. I support this amendment.
Baroness Seear: Although my name is attached to this amendment, I shall not delay the Committee in repeating the strong arguments that have already been put forward by both the previous speakers. I should simply like to underline the view that it is time that we got rid of such a very old fashioned practice. I very much hope that the Committee will accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that we go along with the European proposals and put ourselves straight, so that there is no danger of further cases going before the European Court. That means supporting this amendment rather than the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.
Baroness David: I find it quite extraordinary that we should have to press this amendment today. More than 300 years ago in 1669 a petition was presented to Parliament by a "lively boy" on behalf of the children of the nation to protest against:
"that intolerable grievance our youth lie under, in the accustomed severities of the school discipline of this nation".
It has already taken more than three centuries to respond to the children's appeal. We almost achieved the reform of ending all school corporal punishment in 1986, but the Government decided, against all professional advice, that parents must still be able to pay for the privilege of having their children beaten in private schools. So the matter has dragged on in that discriminatory way.
We have seen the Children Act reforms brought in, with the Department of Health implementing its policy that corporal punishment has no place in the child care environment, including the private sector of child care, private children's homes and private foster care. But the Department for Education has persisted in defending the same practice in the child care environment of private schools.
No organisation is lobbying to keep school corporal punishment. The well known public schools and the Headmasters Conference want abolition. We cannot wait and allow the practice to die out of its own accord. It is a highly resistant habit and, wherever it exists, it carries with it dangers of serious abuse, as we saw in the scandals of Crookham Court and Castle Hill schools. In any case, it has been dying out for a long time. I am told that in 1861 the Clarendon Commission on nine public schools reported that:
"corporal punishment … has greatly diminished".
The Master of Haileybury, in a letter to the Times Educational Supplement in December last year, stated that no reputable independent school retained corporal punishment. It is not a reputable practice. It is an embarrassment and a disgrace that we should be seen to be clinging on to such a discredited, ineffective and cruel habit. As Lady Wootton of Abinger repeated in one of the earliest attempts at abolition in this House:
976
"if a thing is wrong today it should be put right today, not to-morrow or the day after".—[Official Report, 10/12/73; col. 962.]
Let us finish this long overdue reform today. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Elton: As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned the report of the committee that I chaired, I shall briefly intervene. I am sure that my credentials are fairly impeccable. I received corporal punishment, delivered in a manner which I thought was vicious. It was applied in a manner which was thought just by those who administered it. In my turn I administered corporal punishment in a manner which I thought was just and which those who received it doubtless thought was vicious. I draw no conclusions from that except that life is hard and it did me no harm.
The relevant point I wish to make derives from the report referred to by the noble Lord. What sticks in my mind from that report are not the figures that he quoted but the evident fact that schools which were about to be deprived of recourse to corporal punishment were exceedingly nervous, the more so as the day approached. Schools which had been deprived of that recourse were increasingly relaxed, until after a couple of years they had no wish to see corporal punishment return.
I do not think the Committee need fear that the removal of that recourse, which I believe is very rarely used even in the private sector, will have a great impact in regard to the reduction of discipline in our schools. I firmly believe that good discipline can be produced by other means. I have seen it so produced with great effect by the implementation of the recommendations to which the noble Lord was kind enough to refer.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps she could answer questions about the meaning of the amendment.
First, does it apply to Scotland, Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man? If it does not, I suggest that it is right that the United Kingdom and its ancillary islands should have the same law and not different laws. Secondly, supposing the amendment were passed and breached, what is the sanction? Is it an action of tort or is it a crime? If so, what is the penalty?
Baroness Young: I intervene only briefly in this debate. As my noble friend the Minister will know, I have already indicated to her that I personally hope very much that she will reconsider the whole matter. I do so for two reasons—or rather, three reasons, having heard my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham speak. Clearly, we need answers to the particular points that he raised. The first reason is that the overwhelming majority of independent schools no longer use corporal punishment at all. An extremely small number still do—a point clearly made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—and it would be a great mistake for anyone to think otherwise. That is an important point.
The second reason is that there is another serious matter which is quite different and which needs at some stage to be addressed—that is, the problem of discipline in schools. Like many others, I saw the

977
reported case in the press of a school master who intervened to stop two boys fighting. He was suspended for 14 weeks because one of the parents brought an action against him for assault. A number of problems exist in schools but I do not believe that specific one would have been solved by corporal punishment. However, it causes us to think overall of how teachers should be supported in the important role of keeping discipline in the classroom.
That said, I hope that my noble friend Lord Henley, having listened to the arguments on all sides of the Chamber, will feel it right to take the amendment back. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, raises a far wider issue and I am not sure that an Education Bill is the proper place for it. However, I support Amendment No. 245 for the reasons that I have given.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: With the Committee's permission, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 245 and also Amendment No. 246ZA which is grouped with it so that the Committee has the various viewpoints before it.
Today we appear to have three options open to us. The first is to leave the law as it is, governed by the 1986 Act. As explained by my noble friend Lord Henderson, that prohibits any kind of corporal punishment in what one may roughly call the state sector, while leaving the private sector alone. As the Committee may remember, that Act was passed by way of reaction to a decision in the European Court of Human Rights, and to that extent gave effect to the convention. However, it may be said against it that it did not give enough effect; that we ought to go further and give more complete effect to the convention.
Until we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, we do not know whether that is still the Government's position. But it is one option. The second option is that contained in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Henderson, which is an out-and-out prohibition: corporal punishment is bad; there is nothing to be said for it; sweep it all away; bring all schools exactly into line and into line with the children's homes. That has a broad appeal. It brings in the European Convention on Human Rights but it does more. My Amendment No. 246ZA is a slightly modulated version of that. It prohibits corporal punishment only if and in so far as it would be prohibited by the Convention on Human Rights.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee what the convention says. My amendment refers to Articles 3 and 8. Article 3 prohibits inhuman and degrading punishment—"degrading" is the word which always appears in cases. We have to consider whether the punishment is degrading. Article 8 prohibits invasion of personal or private life. That has been referred to in a number of cases. That is broadly in line with the United Nations convention which my noble friend Lord Henderson mentioned. That refers to the human dignity of the child.
Amendment No. 246ZA will go only that far and I do not suppose that any member of the Committee
978
would be unwilling to go so far. The only question is whether one goes further. The fact that I stopped at the point of the requirements of the European convention does not reflect any feelings in favour or against corporal punishment. I confess myself to be an agnostic on that point. Autobiographically, I attended five primary schools and one public school. I experienced a great number of punishments in those institutions—corporal punishment using a great variety of instruments attached to various parts of the body (every kind of combination) combined of course with psychological punishment. Most people thought it to be much more severe and damaging to one's private life to be kept in after school or given 100 lines.
All six institutions were good in their way. The experience left me with only one conviction—that is, that discipline in schools and the best interests of pupils, whether short or long term, is not brought about by regulations or prohibitions. In the end it depends entirely on the good sense, the good humanity and the good humour of the staff and their relations with the parents and pupils. That is the basis on which I venture to suggest that the way forward may be not to interfere any more than is necessary with what is accepted by public opinion and parents. It is a minimalist approach to legislation. We should not legislate more than we have to in order to address perceived ills; we should not legislate in any area which may well be better dealt with by co-operation and the gradual movement forward of public opinion.
It is important to realise that the European convention does not outlaw all corporal punishment, nor do the cases under it. The cases say that to come under the convention and be prohibited by it the punishment must surpass a specific threshold of degradation, invasion, cruelty or whatever. Only then does the convention come into play. The most recent case with which the Committee is familiar, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is the case of Costello-Roberts, reported only this year. That was a case in which the court held that it did not come within the convention. It was a case of minor spanking of a boy of seven or eight in a fully clothed condition. The court held that it was neither degrading nor an invasion of privacy.
The question therefore is whether we should interfere outside the area which is not covered by the European convention or by the cases brought under it. We must ask what one would be dealing with if one passed the out-and-out legislation. One would be dealing with acts outside the convention; acts which did not come up to the threshold established by the cases; and acts that were not hit by the common law. Let us not forget that the common law requires that for punishment to be legitimate it must be reasonable and moderate. Moreover, one would be dealing with acts to which parents have no objection.
We must bear in mind two points. The first is that children in independent schools already have strong protection—the protection of the convention, of the common law and the fact that parents can withdraw the child from the school if they wish, which is a heavy sanction. The second point is that parents still have a right at common law to administer moderate corporal

979
punishment. Only two weeks ago there was a case of spanking similar to the Costello-Roberts case. This time the mother was brought before the courts under the common law. The judge expressed himself in some indignation in face of the suggestion that such modest chastisement should be contrary to the common law.
That area is left outside and there is no proposal that it should be encompassed by the legislation. One is therefore left with the argument of uniformity. We have legislated as regards the state sector; we have legislated as regards children's homes. What is the reason for making a difference? The reason for uniformity is always a strong one. But should we not bear in mind that there are many areas in the field of education in which the state quite properly takes the attitude that it is represented by a majority in Parliament and must intervene, but nevertheless does not feel it necessary to intervene in the case of the private sector? In the case of religious education, which is far more important than this, it is left in the independent sector to be dealt with as parents wish. That is really what the independent sector is about—to enable, within reasonable and carefully controlled limits, parents and teachers in co-operation with parents to do what they think best.
If my amendment were to be accepted—I am only putting it forward for consideration by the Government and by the Committee—it would not unleash a great orgy of Squeers-like punishment in independent schools. We have heard from a number of speakers that it is withering on the vine anyway. Almost all independent schools have dealt with it. Is it necessary to bring in the heavy hand of legislation and go further? The restraints are very great already on what can be done in independent schools. The noble Baroness, Lady David, made it perfectly clear, and I do not suppose anyone would dispute it, that corporal punishment has very little life left in it anyway. My only suggestion, therefore, is to come within the convention, which would put the Government right with the European convention instead of having themselves liable to be brought before the Court, in order that cases under it might be decided in our courts rather than in the European Court. The Costello-Roberts case took eight years to get to the European Court of Human Rights—eight years after this minor spanking took place. We must do better than that. If the only way to do it is by an out and out prohibition, then I would go along with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I simply venture to suggest that it might be wiser and more in accordance with the proper way in which we legislate to adopt a more measured approach and bring ourselves in line with the convention—fully in line with it—but not go any further. In due course I shall consider whether or not to move my amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I have the privilege of being a governor of an independent school which gave up corporal punishment more than 50 years ago. I wonder whether I might take this advantage, as some of the pupils are sitting in the Gallery, of witnessing that their behaviour is extremely good.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish very briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. In essence, apart from the reasons that the noble and learned Lord gave, it removes the delay and dissension which exist on the reference to the Court of Human Rights. This is extremely deleterious to the discipline in schools, to which my noble friend Lady Young has referred. It is totally adequate to deal with the broad merits of the situation. I shall not take up the Committee's time. I have no particular interest to declare, having been subjected myself to a rigorous regime of corporal punishment at my own public school. But we always had the option of staying in to do German words or verbs and work on the classics. I always chose corporal punishment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I, too, shall be brief and in rising to speak I wish to apologise to the Committee, and to noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in particular, for arriving late. As a result I did not hear the first part of his speech.
In the brief which many of us have been sent there is a reference to Mr. Thomas Hammarberg of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, who said at an international conference on smacking and other forms of physical punishment:
"The psychological impact on children is much deeper than we once thought".
That was said in March 1992. That conclusion is welcomed, but I am surprised—indeed astonished—that it took high-powered research and international conferences to discover that. I should have thought that anyone with any dealings with children—and plenty of your Lordships have plenty of experience in that field—would soon realise the effect that corporal punishment has on them.
I shudder to think of the possible long-term effect of physical punishment. One has only to read of the many court cases to see how many offenders come from homes and organisations where corporal punishment has taken place, and has taken place regularly in many instances. In private boarding schools where corporal punishment takes place the child does not have the comfort and security of its parents to run to. It would seem evident to most people that some children who are physically punished may assume that it is something which is acceptable in society and that they in turn can indulge in physical violence. I am certain that that does happen.
We are told that the Government's position is that corporal punishment for privately funded pupils in independent schools has been retained on grounds of parental choice. There is surely only one criterion in this matter. Is it advisable that the child should be physically punished—advisable, that is, from both a physical and a mental point of view? The Government's view clearly from the decision taken on all other schools is that it is not acceptable. Parental choice, therefore, in this case should be superseded, important though parental choice is. I hope that the Government, when we have their reply today, will produce a much stronger argument than that in attempting to defend their position.

981
From time to time we hear people say, "I was physically punished when I was young and it never did me any harm". I often wonder whether people who say that realise just what an arrogant statement it is. An independent view of that person would sometimes be rather different. I strongly support the amendment and I hope that the Committee will.
Lord Renton: I shall be very brief. I have to say that in many years in Parliament I have scarcely ever disagreed with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, but I feel bound to comment on his argument that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—I do not know whether my noble and learned friend was referring to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, as well—should apply not merely to England and Wales but to Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. I must remind my noble and learned friend that the Scots have always had separate legislation—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend but I did not make any argument at all. I asked a question and I am awaiting an answer from the Government. So please do not misrepresent what I said.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that correction but perhaps I may be forgiven at the same time for assuming that he was implying that that is what should be the case. However, having said that, perhaps I may now move on to the only other point I was going to make as there is no need for me to repeat the arguments. I would be prepared to accept either the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, or that spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.
Lord Annan: I wonder whether this is not a matter on which public opinion has changed. In the early 1970s I remember in your Lordships' House late at night that the Court Lees case was being discussed. It was a case in which the headmaster of an approved school was alleged to have given unduly severe corporal punishment to a boy in his charge. At that time I well remember the warmth with which some noble Lords defended corporal punishment. In fact, so warm were their speeches that I thought that they were about to disrobe in your Lordships' Chamber on the spot in order to show that the scars that had been inflicted on them many years before had done them no harm at all. But times have changed.
At about that time the report of the Public Service Commission was published. Having been a member of that body, I am bound to say that it was one of the most time-consuming and valueless exercises in which I have ever been engaged. But we said one thing; namely, that it was scandalous that the beating of boys by boys continued in independent schools. I believe that partly as a result of that report that practice has now been entirely abolished in independent schools. We did not go further at that time. We felt that we were unable to say to independent schools that they
982
should ban the practice, which was still in force in the public sector. But this practice is no longer in force in the public sector.
Is it right that there should be, as it were, two separate jurisdictions on this matter still extant in our country? If we do not follow either of these amendments we shall inevitably find a situation in which we are exposed to ridicule and contempt in the European Court. I say that because it is quite clear from what has happened in the Isle of Man that that will occur on this matter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, asked whether it would be a tort or a crime and, not being a lawyer, I am incapable of saying. But I think it likely that a case of tort would exist if a parent desired to bring an action against the school authorities. I guess that the very threat that it might be ruled a crime would lead to the governing body of that school taking steps to see that corporal punishment was not inflicted again.
Therefore, it is for those reasons that I ask the Government to think again about this matter and to consider which of the two amendments they would like in order to redraft the Act. I will not say that the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce is as congenial to me as that of my noble friend Lord Henderson, but either will do as far as I am concerned.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: I too must apologise to my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton for having missed his opening remarks. I was caught out by the fact that Starred Questions lasted for about half their usual duration. I have enormous respect for all Members of the Committee who have put their names to Amendment No. 245, but I am sorry to say that this amendment is a textbook example of political correctness. It is also extremely Swedish, which is perhaps a tautology since few countries are more politically correct than Sweden. Moreover, it evokes the mainly failed progressive nostrums of the 1960s. But these are not the only reasons for saying that this amendment should be resisted.
Perhaps the most important reason is that it deprives parents of their right of choice. Parents who disapprove of corporal punishment under any circumstances have an enormous choice of schools to which to send their children, which is as it should be. Why should not parents who want their children to be brought up in a more disciplined environment than is current nowadays, and which includes the ultimate sanction of corporal punishment for really serious bad behaviour, also be able to choose?
The object is not to have corporal punishment regularly administered to their children or those who might be bullying them, but to have it in reserve to deter very bad behaviour so, ideally, it never has to be used at all. Furthermore, if teachers in loco parentis are forbidden to apply corporal punishment, even with the parents' express consent, how long will it be before someone introduces a Bill to make it illegal for parents themselves to smack their children?—shades of socialist Sweden yet again!

983
Where the opponents of corporal punishment have not thought the matter through is in considering the alternative. In countries where it has been abolished for a long time—such as France—teachers have become extremely skilled at directing withering sarcasm and scorn towards an errant child. To pillory a child in that way in front of its peers is every bit as traumatic as corporal punishment—perhaps more so. Of course there are noble Lords and people elsewhere in the country who say that no punishment should be unpleasant, whether it be physical or psychological. Realistically, one has to say that unless a punishment is unpleasant, it fails to deter.
About 50 years' ago I was sent for a year to a school which was very progressive by the standards of the time. It was most unusual in that there was no corporal punishment. Instead, when you misbehaved, you had to do things like clean windows or other tasks about the school. As far as I was concerned that was no punishment at all. I rather enjoyed it, particularly on a freezing cold day when I was doing various jobs inside when the other boys were running around in driving sleet and hail. After a year the family moved and I was sent back to a more conventional school where corporal punishment was normal, though not to excess. I disliked it and accordingly I moderated my behaviour, and became very adept at keeping a low profile—a very useful attribute for later life!
Is this really the time to introduce such a measure when there has been such a general breakdown of discipline among young people, with bullying, car theft, joy-riding, ram-raiding, vandalism and arson? Hardly a day goes by without a car being set on fire around us in the country. There is widespread thuggery day-by-day. The amendment would catch not only formal corporal punishment, but as I understand it, also instances where hulking 15 year-olds who may well be taller and heavier than the teacher, hit—
Lord Elton: Can the noble Lord tell us why he assumes that being able to beat people will stop car crime, vandalism, arson and so forth? It is a complete non sequitur.
Lord Monson: Because they will grow up in a more disciplined milieu to begin with. That is the reason. Of course I accept that corporal punishment would not be used for car crime. It is the formative influences on them as they go through school which affect their later behaviour, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree. If a hulking 15 year-old, who may be taller and heavier than the teacher, hits, kicks or indecently assaults him or her, and then he or she instinctively and spontaneously hits back, is it not likely that the teacher will be prosecuted, whereas the 15 year-old will get off scot-free?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If the noble Lord is opposed to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, how does he justify that opposition when we are subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights?
Lord Monson: I have not said a word about the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. I am speaking purely to Amendment No. 245.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I was listening with great attention. I found it difficult to follow. But the noble Lord did refer to his opposition to both amendments.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord misunderstood me. I shall come to my noble and learned friend's amendment in a moment. It may be argued, with reason, that there are relatively few independent schools whose pupils indulge in such bad behaviour; but it is the timing of the move which would be so unfortunate in the present climate of indiscipline and rising crime: I am speaking about the first amendment on the Marshalled List. Whatever the general public believe or want—various Members of the Committee, such as my noble friend Lord Annan, have said that public opinion has changed, although I am dubious about that—if this amendment is passed, the message will go out to the general public that the House of Lords has decreed that liberal idealism must at all costs prevail over hard-headed realism and that parental choice is something to be scorned. I do not believe that that is a message which the public want to hear.
Having said that, the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce is another matter altogether. Nobody wants under any circumstances punishment which is inhuman. Punishment which is "degrading" is a little more subjective, but from what my noble and learned friend said, the courts have always interpreted that word in a thoroughly sensible way. That being so, I would have no hesitation in supporting his amendment, but I do not agree with Amendment No. 245.
Lord Wigoder: It is a fact—is it not?—that it is now the law of this country that school teachers may not beat children. There is, however, one exception to that law, and that is that there are a certain number of children—a small number—in a small number of private schools who are exempt from that law. To be exempt from the law of the land is a privilege. It follows immediately that those who oppose the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, are therefore saying that there are a certain number of children who should be privileged to be the subject of corporal punishment. The question then arises: why should those children be privileged and not others? The answer is perfectly straightforward—it is because the parents are wealthy enough to afford private education. The very proposition that the wealth of the parent should decide whether a child should be privileged to be beaten is so absurd that I venture to suggest that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is quite unanswerable.
Lord Annan: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that the difference between the public and the private sector is this? It is very difficult in the public sector to expel a child from school, whereas in the

985
private sector it is perfectly easy to expel children who have conducted themselves in an anti-social and wicked way. Therefore, corporal punishment is no longer needed in independent schools.
Lord Judd: In firmly and strongly welcoming and supporting the amendment, I feel a little inhibited in view of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington. Listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, I had clear memories of one of the discoveries that I made personally at the age of 10 about the ineffectiveness of supposed deterrents. I can remember having imposed upon me what I thought was an unwarranted intrusion into my privacy—200 lines—and going to see the master concerned and negotiating a beating instead. That master and I had mutual respect from that day onward. He thought that I was a sensible chap and I realised that on many occasions deterrents were not worth the paper that they were written on or argued about.
The point that I really want to make is that it is all right for robust young delinquents, but all the evidence suggests that many young children were and can be very seriously damaged by corporal punishment. I can also recall that in those days there was at times undoubtedly an atmosphere of collective social morbidity in the school that I attended which centred around the practice of corporal punishment. It was not healthy. I am very glad that corporal punishment was abolished a long time ago at that school. Having returned to it recently, I am glad to say that all the evidence is that discipline there now is at least as good as it ever was, and probably very much better.
I should like to make two points in support of the amendment. First, in December 1991 the Government ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Its terms are absolutely clear-cut because it obliges states to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence and to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity.
Perhaps I may conclude by paying a tribute to one of the great campaigners of recent times in this country, Penelope Leach of the End Physical Punishment of Children campaign. When she was speaking at the international conference on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in March 1992, I think that she summed it up brilliantly when she simply said:
"You cannot teach children to respect each other and solve problems by using personal violence on them".
That, to me, is the absolutely unanswerable case. At a time when we are worried about standards, values and social responsibility, actually to indulge in institutionalised brutality in any form is an own goal kick of the most gigantic proportions and something which we should take the opportunity today of totally eliminating.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell us whether or not he is speaking in the light of the fact that he considers that this
986
amendment applies to Scotland? His party plays a great part in the political life of Scotland. I am not clear—and my noble friend the Minister has not answered yet—but if I remember rightly, the Education Act 1986 does apply to Scotland. My noble friend has not nodded or shaken his head. As this Bill applies only to England, I am a little concerned that the Committee might accept an amendment to a Bill that applies only to England which, in fact, would introduce a clause that applies to Scotland. I wondered from what point of view the noble Lord was speaking. Presumably he has considered the matter.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: I am sure that it is for the Minister and the mover of the amendment to deal with that point, but perhaps I may make an observation. Although I have always admired the record of Scottish education, one of the things that I have always deplored about it has been the institutionalisation of the tawse and the rest. I hope that, whatever the detail of the amendment, the principle of it will be applied throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am perfectly conscious that the Bill does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. If the amendment is carried, perhaps it would be best if Northern Ireland and Scotland could conform to its provisions in subsequent legislation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who is a great expert on such things, whether amending the 1986 Act overrides the fact that the Bill applies only to England and Wales. I wondered whether or not I needed to make a speech.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I gather that an attempt was made in the House of Commons to extend the Bill to Scotland and that the Clerks forbade it. I am not sure whether they would do so in this House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): Perhaps it would help if I intervened now. May I pick up that first point? My understanding is that the amendment itself does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland, but I do not think that that is something that should concern the Committee at the moment. I think that it is more important to deal with the general principle as we see it.
The Committee will be aware that we have debated this subject on many previous occasions, and particularly at length, as noble Lords will remember, at the time of the passing of the Education (No. 2) Act back in 1986. As many noble Lords have made quite clear, corporal punishment is currently prohibited in maintained schools and other types of publicly funded schools for those pupils whose fees are met wholly or partly from public funds.
Perhaps I may deal with the first amendment, that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. It would have the effect of denying freedom of choice to parents who wished, by virtue of their own

987
philosophical convictions, to send their son or daughter to an independent school which administered corporal punishment in response to a serious breach of that school's disciplinary code.
I do acknowledge the very strong views which this subject evokes on all sides of the House, but I believe that this amendment—the first amendment, that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—is misguided. It seeks to overrule the (possibly very deeply held) convictions of parents who choose of their own free will to send their children to schools with such a disciplinary regime. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, not all parents making that choice are rich; many make enormous sacrifices to send their children to such schools. They sacrifice their own money and it is their own choice. It is a choice of their own free will to send their children to schools with such a disciplinary regime. I make no apology for repeating this argument—I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, who said that it was a very small point. I simply do not agree.
We are well known for our advocacy of parental rights. Fee-paying parents are not obliged to send their children to these schools; they have freedom of choice. As many noble Lords have said, most independent schools do not, as a matter of policy, administer corporal punishment. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who said that he believed that only some 30 or so schools still have such a policy. My understanding is about the same, but I do not think that one can make anything of the particular numbers. It is, of course, the principle that is important. If parents are at all anxious about a school's policy on corporal punishment, they are quite free to send their children to an independent school that does not operate this particular sanction or to a school in the maintained sector.
While those options are available to parents, we see no need to extend the existing ban in the way suggested. Nor do I accept the general principle that we should interfere in the rights of the independent sector in that way.
I should like to say a word or two about the Costello-Roberts judgment, and the recent opinion from Mr. David Pannick which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. The Government are of course aware of the court's judgment in that case. I have read carefully Mr. Pannick's opinion. The fact is that in no case—that or any other—has the United Kingdom been found to have been in breach of Articles 3 or 8 of the convention by reason of the use of corporal punishment in schools. In that case, the court specifically rejected the applicant's complaint that he had no effective remedy in the United Kingdom in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 8, as required by Article 13. The court agreed with the Government's submission that an effective remedy was available to the applicant in that case under domestic law. I can inform the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that that is still our view.
I turn to Amendment No. 246ZA tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. It has the obvious attraction of requiring nothing more than that our law should reflect this country's obligations
988
under the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not believe that it would be right to refer expressly in legislation to the two articles of the convention referred to by the noble and learned Lord's amendment. The question of express incorporation of the convention in domestic law raises far wider questions which are not appropriate for a debate on corporal punishment and the Education Bill. But the Government are not at present able to say how we might achieve the aims behind the noble and learned Lord's amendment. We are sympathetic to those aims. We are willing to consider, in consultation with the noble and learned Lord, his amendment and the form of some possible amendment which might achieve what he desires to which we can return on Report.
That said, going back to Amendment No. 245, I cannot accept the principle of that amendment and its outright prohibition. But, as I said, I am prepared to have a further look at the amendment's aims, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, put it, the middle way as expressed in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. If the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is not prepared to withdraw his amendment, I ask the Committee to reject it. I hope that, in the light of the fact that I have said that I am prepared to take away and consider the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Before my noble friend resumes his seat, I am sorry to press him on a minor matter. If the amendment were passed, as it might be because most noble Lords who have spoken have spoken in favour of it, or if my noble and learned friend's amendment were subsequently passed, what sanction is there behind the proposal? Is it an action for tort only, or does it constitute an assault and is therefore a matter for the criminal courts?
Lord Henley: It would be a question of fact and degree. It is a matter for noble Lords who have tabled the amendments. My understanding is that if any punishment were excessive it becomes an assault and is therefore a matter for the criminal courts. If it is not excessive, as the law stands at the moment, an individual might have a right in the civil courts. I should not like to make any categoric statement on this matter, because they are not my amendments. We see something in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. We are prepared to look at it, but we are not prepared to accept the slightly tougher line of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the Minister sits down, if he is going to consider the matter, will he study the position of children who are at private schools, as we now call them, under the assisted places scheme? They are government-funded. Many such places are now wholly government-funded because the parents are unfortunately unemployed. Because such

989
places are funded wholly by the Government would that put the Government themselves in jeopardy under EC regulations?
Lord Henley: I shall repeat what I said at the beginning. Corporal punishment is currently prohibited in maintained schools and other types of publicly funded schools, and for those people—these are the people to whom the noble Baroness refers—whose fees are met wholly or partly from public funds.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: This has been a remarkable debate. Apart from the Minister, only one Peer has spoken against my amendment, and that was the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The Minister and the noble Lord based their objection upon the limitation of parental choice. That argument was cogently countered in a leading article in The Times on 26th March 1993 just after the publication of the recent judgment of the European Court. The article said:
"Britain's private schools are essential to the nation's educational diversity and the promotion of parental choice, but parental choice, like any other freedom, must have its limits".
That principle is as well expressed as it could possibly be. I need elaborate no further upon the sole objection which has been put against the amendment. As the Committee, apart from the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has been unanimous on an all-party basis, I believe that it is right to test the opinion of the Committee.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 245) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falkender, B.

Addington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Annan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ardwick, L.

Galpern, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Geraint, L.

Auckland, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Aylestone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Birkett, L.

[Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Granville of Eye, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gregson, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Bottomley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brightman, L.

Hamwee, B.

Brimelow, L.

Hanworth, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Butterfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

[Teller.]

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hothfield, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hughes, L.

David, B.

Jay, L.

Desai, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Donoughue, L.

Jeger, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Eatwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Judd, L.

Faithfull, B.

Kennet, L.

990

Kilmarnock, L.

Renton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Richard, L.

Lawrence, L.

Richardson, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Longford, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seear, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Serota, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stallard, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Stedman, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Molloy, L.

Strafford, E.

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mulley, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Thurlow, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ogmore, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Palmer, L.

Warnock, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Peston, L.

Wharton, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wynford, L.

Rea, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Redesdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Goschen, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Granard, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Arran, E.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Grey, E.

Astor, V.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hampden, V.

Bessborough, E.

Hampton, L.

Blatch, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Blyth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Borthwick, L.

Henley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hood, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Howe, E.

Brentford, V.

Huntly, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Butterworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cadman, L.

Kimball, L.

Caithness, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Leigh, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cawley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Long, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

[Lord Chancellor.]

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Manchester, D.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cox, B.

Margadale, L.

Cranborne, V.

Marlesford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Monson, L.

Davidson, V.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Denham, L.

Morris, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mountevans, L.

Donegall, M.

Mountgarret, V.

Dudley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Effingham, E.

Munster, E.

Elibank, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Falkland, V.

Nelson, E.

Ferrers, E.

Norfolk, D.

Flather, B.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gainford, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Geddes, L.

Pender, L.

991

Perry of Southwark, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Perth, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

[Teller.]

Prior, L.

Sudeley, L.

Reading, M.

Swansea, L.

Rennell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Tebbit, L.

St. Davids, V.

Terrington, L.

Seccombe, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Shannon, E.

Trumpington, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wakeham, L.

Skidelsky, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Stewartby, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Strange, B.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.6 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 246:
Before Clause 217, insert the following new clause:
("General Teaching Council for England and Wales
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall undertake consultation with a view to establishing a General Teaching Council for England and Wales to exercise in relation to teachers in England and Wales the functions conferred upon them by regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State for the purpose of regulating and developing the role of the teaching profession.
(2) Following consultation under this section with organisations appearing to him to be representative of teachers in England and Wales, the Secretary of State shall report his findings to Parliament within twelve months of the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I make no apology for returning to this subject, which we debated in another context in relation to the amendment so well proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Dainton.
Without teachers and good teaching, without the highest standards, all our long nights of deliberation on the Bill are so much hot air. Frankly, there have been moments in our proceedings when I have almost despaired at the Government's mechanistic preoccupations with control and an apparent lack of concern for the essence of it all; in other words, the development of teachers and teaching and, indeed, of the pupils themselves.
In considering plans for the future of education the Government must recognise the central importance of ensuring a stable, well-qualified, continuously learning teaching profession and the importance of building a creative and constructive relationship with it. The Cross-Benchers in the Chamber have well demonstrated their commitment to the principle of a General Teaching Council. I am glad to say that this is another issue on which there is a unanimity of view between the Liberal Democrat and Labour Benches. The Labour Party has published its commitment to establishing a General Teaching Council with the words:
"to uphold professional standards and help raise teachers' self-esteem".
The Liberal Democrats have shared that commitment, publicly going on record as saying:
"Liberal Democrats will establish a General Teaching Council to promote the professional status of teachers, oversee standards and advise the Government".
Beyond that debates in this Chamber in 1989 and 1991 showed strong cross-party support for a statutory General Teaching Council reflecting the strength of support expressed in the other place in 1990 by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. The Committee will recall that the Select Committee stated:
"we recommend that the Government create a General Teaching Council to work for the enhancement of the profession".
At that stage the Government of the day declined to accept the proposal. But in 1991 the Chairman of the Conservative Party said—and it is interesting:
"The Government has never opposed a General Teaching Council in principle but believes that it can only be effective if it emanates from, rather than is imposed on, the teaching profession".
That is what the amendment is designed to address.
The formal consultation proposed by the new clause answers specifically the need for any council to emanate from the profession. The structures for consultation already exist. The work of GTC (England and Wales) organisation, led by Professor Tomlinson, is designed to enable the Secretary of State to pursue an acceptable proposal towards the statute book. There are 32 key associations committed to the general principles of that work, sharing their thoughts on how to establish a general teaching council and make it a governing council for the whole of the public education service.
During our earlier debate in Committee the Minister referred to Professor Tomlinson's organisation as evidence that teachers' organisations can get together to form a voluntary, non-statutory general teaching council. However, Professor Tomlinson and his impressive range of supporters do not seek to set themselves up as a non-statutory general teaching council. They are available as the major channel for consultation on the creation of a statutory general teaching council. They seek to promote the proposal within the profession and publicly.
Indeed, their proposals are for an overarching professional body to determine the necessary standards of training, qualifications and conduct appropriate for public recognition as a teacher or as an initial trainer of teachers. The body would screen and recognise qualifications and training received in Scotland, the European Community and further afield. The general teaching council would maintain a register of those entitled to teach and those who should not. It would be the body to advise on the supply of teachers, on their training and professional development, on retraining and on good practice in induction. It would promote related research and inquiry. It would be the voice of the whole profession to the public.
In the earlier debate on the general teaching council, the Minister echoed the anxieties of the Secretary of State in an article published in the Independent in which he had written that teachers should form a body on the royal college model. But with great respect, that approach singularly fails to distinguish between the need for a professional forum and the need for teachers to act collectively on pay and conditions of service. There is a role for trade unions

993
and professional bodies of teachers which is quite distinct from the role of a general teaching council which is addressed by the amendment.
The Minister went on to say that the GTC should be non-statutory. She said:
"we believe that it must be for teachers themselves to address the benefit of a non-statutory professional body concerned with the status of the profession and matters of professional conduct".—[Official Report, 20/4/93; col. 1433.]
Individual professional associations may contribute guidelines and exert their influence on members to follow them, but such voluntary disciplines have no force in law and no direct bearing on decisions relating to teaching. It has been said that arrangements exist for individual consultations with the various professional associations but consultation is not of the same order as the advice which would be given by a proper statutory GTC. For example, there is no requirement in Parliament that regard should be given to evidence merely offered in consultation, as government intransigence on this Bill so well illustrates.
Moreover, existing consultation is limited to the questions perceived to be appropriate by government departments. The obvious need is for a professional body competent to govern the profession and to offer advice and recommendations to the Government, taking account of the whole profession. The composition of the general teaching council could well include all major sectors of the education service. There could be a clear majority of registered teachers while no one organised body would represent a majority. The public interest could also be fully represented, including central and local government, parents, governors, the employment interest and the providers of institutions.
The GTC, which many envisage, would be a body with a full professional mandate across the whole profession, also enjoying the participation and support of parents. It would guide and reflect a profession engaged in a key public service.
A general teaching council reaching across the whole education service would not only be the appropriate body to advise government, it would become the body to regulate practice. It is hoped that it would rise above party political dogma and the prejudices of individual Ministers. It would be able to inspire confidence among parents, teachers and the children themselves. It would provide a sound basis for partnership based on the professional self-respect of the teaching profession.
With those remarks I have attempted to make clear the case for legislation. We believe that a general teaching council needs to be established. We believe that it requires a statutory basis. In the previous debate in Committee the Minister appeared to agree with the principles of a general teaching council. As I have tried to illustrate, the difference centred on whether such a GTC requires a statutory basis. The Minister said:
"The difference between us … is the distinction between a non-statutory professional body as opposed to a statutory professional body. That a body should be established to
994
enhance the status and professionalism of teachers is not in question and is not a point of difference between us".—[Official Report, 20/4/93; col. 1433.]
The new clause does not compel the Secretary of State to take a statutory power which the Minister said—and she was being very honest—that the Government had no intention of using. Instead, the proposed clause provides for the Secretary of State to undertake consultations with a view to establishing a general teaching council for England and Wales, a very different proposition. The new clause goes further than simply giving the Secretary of State the power to make an order to establish a general teaching council; it makes clear the remit of consultation with regard to establishing a general teaching council. It does not tie the Government to establishing such a council but it makes clear that:
"following consultation … the Secretary of State shall report his findings to Parliament".
In other words, the new clause asks the Government to take on board the serious anxieties expressed for the establishment of a general teaching council. It establishes that the Government should not close the door on statutory provision. Rather, they should begin a serious evaluation and return to Parliament at the earliest opportunity, within 12 months of passing this Bill, after full consultation with the professions and others. The Secretary of State would then be able to bring forward regulations for a GTC. If, after that evaluation, the Secretary of State were to come down against establishing such a statutory body, he would then be able to demonstrate convincingly to all concerned after such consultations why he had reached that conclusion and why there were very good reasons for not so doing. At present, we have not had the evaluation, the full consultation or the great national debate. Therefore, there is inevitably anxiety about what is seen as a rather abrupt and perhaps ill-founded position on the part of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: As an ex-teacher in both the maintained and independent sectors I strongly support this amendment. A general teaching council is undoubtedly an idea whose time has now come.
I must admit that I had no idea until the other day how much background work had gone into producing a blueprint for a GTC, and how much unanimity had been achieved among the major bodies in the field of education, even to the extent of a draft Bill ready for presentation to Parliament.
Today we are not primarily concerned with the detail. What is important is the principle. Teachers are a beleaguered group at the moment. Their fortunes tend to go in cycles, as society first praises them and then condemns them when aspects of our national life go wrong. They are very vulnerable to swings in morale, the more so when they feel that they are not consulted and their professionalism and expertise are undervalued. When teachers' morale goes down, then so, I believe, does their effectiveness in the classroom. The creation of a general teaching council will do a great deal for morale and self-respect, in giving the

995
profession a large measure of control over its own affairs, and in conferring the status which it has never quite had before.
It is that sense of status, just as much as monetary rewards, which separates our teachers from their colleagues in other European countries. When that is improved, I think we will see other improvements as well. Of course this is asking the Government to give up some areas of control. I think a bit of faith in this respect will be well rewarded. Fears that were expressed that a GTC will be hijacked by the more militant unionists are unlikely to be realised: the evidence is that this is not what happens in cases of this kind. When you give people responsibility they usually live up to it.
When we debated a similar amendment on the first day in Committee, the essence of the Minister's reply was that it was not for the Government to give statutory backing to the teaching profession. But we did not really hear why. The osteopaths are currently becoming a self-regulated profession under statute with the Government's blessing. Why not the teachers? We believe it would do a great amount of good if Parliament were to take the initiative here. There is much more to be gained than lost by this amendment. I hope it will find general support.
Baroness Seear: I strongly support the amendment. However, I must, first, apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I confess that I was two minutes late getting back from the Tea Room and he had started his speech before my return. However, I believe that this is probably the most important amendment before the Committee in connection with the Bill. It is common ground between us that education in this country is of the highest importance and that all is not well with education by a very long way. I believe that nothing could do more to enhance the teaching profession than for it to have its own general teaching council. It would put teachers on a par with other professions which have the right to regulate their own professional affairs. It would give them a status and a dignity which they lack at present and would increase the attractiveness of the teaching profession as regards the people who need to be drawn in if the schools are to be able to give the education that is needed to the children of this country.
It is nothing to do with the teaching trade unions' rights of negotiation, which are a proper but quite separate issue. It is nothing to do with the rights of teachers to be consulted on particular matters. It is to do with the rights of teachers to be a self-governing body of professionals concerned with the content of training, standards of performance and discipline among its members. Such considerations give professional status and help to maintain it. Unless we do that we shall not get the teachers that we need. If we do not get the teachers that we need, none of the other reforms in this or in any other Bill will provide us with the educational improvements that we require.
I believe that the proposal is essential to the whole drive which is shared on all sides of the Committee for improvements in education. We are not asking the Government to set up a general teaching council straight away. We are asking for consultation as to
996
how it should be done. However, for the reasons that I have given, we believe that it should be on a statutory basis. I very much hope that it will command support from all sides of the Committee. It would be an essential step forward—a step without which the other steps are likely to prove of marginally little value.
Lord Walton of Detchant: As some Members of the Committee will be aware, I have had the privilege for the past two years of chairing the Hamlyn National Commission on Education, which is in the process of undertaking a very thorough examination and review of the whole educational system within the United Kingdom from nursery schooling up to continuing education for adult life. Because of that responsibility and because the commission will not have completed its task until November of this year (when it hopes to report and make its recommendations), it is perhaps unfortunate that we have not been in a position to contribute to the debates on the Bill.
For that reason, I have generally refrained from involving myself in the debates both on Second Reading and in Committee. However, I welcome the opportunity today to express a personal opinion upon the need for a general teaching council, as I firmly believe, in support of what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that that is very much a development to be welcomed.
I was unable to contribute to the debate on Amendment No. 10 moved by my noble friend Lord Butterfield because it happened to coincide with the latter part of a meeting of the Committee on Medical Ethics, which I chair. However, as I said, I welcome the opportunity to speak now strongly in favour of the proposal contained in the amendment for a variety of reasons. First, professional self-regulation has been one of the corner-stones and glories of the British professional society. Secondly, there has been a general teaching council in Scotland for over 40 years. Although it had a very slow start, it has, nevertheless, increasingly gained the confidence of the profession and has been very effective in the way in which it has contributed to standards of education in that country.
Thirdly, in my professional life I have had the privilege of serving in a number of medical organisations. Much was made in the debate on Amendment No. 10 of the issue of comparability between, on the one hand, the organisations which exist in my profession, in dentistry and in nursing and, on the other, the proposals relating to a general teaching council. But in medicine the British Medical Association is unashamedly a trade union and is registered as such. It is a body concerned with negotiating terms and conditions of service for its members. It is a professional association. Nevertheless, it is a body which makes recommendations in relation to medicine, ethics and education; but its negotiating role is primary.
In her reply to the debate on Amendment No. 10, the noble Baroness said the Government favoured much more the creation of a Royal college of teaching comparable to the Royal colleges which exist in the medical profession. There are many such colleges and faculties. Most of them are involved with laying down

997
criteria for training at a post-graduate level in individual specialties in medicine. They are essentially professional groups concerned with the provision of scientific training and with the conferment of higher qualifications which attest to the achievement of a certain standard in the specialty with which they are concerned. They are not trade unions. They do not have, except through the conference of colleges representation upon the joint consultants committee, a formal negotiating role but in that committee they join with the BMA in offering advice to government.
By contrast, the General Medical Council, over which I have the privilege to preside—and I am glad to see beside me one of my predecessors as president of that council, my noble friend Lord Richardson—is a statutory body which was created by Act of Parliament in 1858. It is perfectly true that since the Merrison Committee reported some years ago upon its reconstitution that body has been totally reconstructed. It has a majority of registered medical practitioners elected from the entire body of doctors in the United Kingdom.
Many people felt that, once there was an elected majority of doctors, there was a serious risk that that body might be hijacked by the BMA and other professional self-interest groups. But that has been very far from the case. The electoral mechanisms and the electoral scheme laid down have made it absolutely clear that, indeed, a considerable number of those who were elected to the council have been people of high academic standing in the universities and in the bodies concerned with the provision of medical education. It is perfectly true that the BMA and the other special interest groups in the profession have sponsored candidates for election to the GMC, but my experience throughout my term of service as president to the council, and long before that, was that, once elected to the General Medical Council, those individuals did not in any way continue to pursue the interest of the group which may have sponsored them for election but acted in the best interests of the profession.
It is equally important to recognise that the constitution of that council also allowed for a considerable number of lay members and for those appointed by the Privy Council to offer an independent view. The principle concerns not so much whether such a general teaching council might be hijacked, as some have suggested, by the teaching unions. It is surely one of professional self-regulation and creating a body constituted so as to further the interests of the educational system of the United Kingdom; that is, not only through registering those who have completed a satisfactory programme of training and who are, therefore, individuals who can be regarded as being properly qualified to teach but also through having the statutory authority through an education committee to make recommendations upon developments in education. I believe that that is one of the principal duties of such a council.
The education committee of the General Medical Council, elected from the main body, has been recognised in medical education as being the body
998
which above all others has been most innovative, most original and most influential in achieving high standards of medical education. I have no doubt that the education committee of a general teaching council could fulfil exactly that role, just as it is important that it should fulfil, as the GMC does, a seminal role in the responsibility, discipline, ethics and professional standards of the teaching profession.
I could not accept the arguments adduced by the noble Baroness in rejecting the idea of a general teaching council in her answer to Amendment No. 10. I believe that this country will have, should have, and indeed must have, a general teaching council which is properly constituted so as to achieve self-respect; a much greater, as it were, standing of the teaching profession in this country, and higher standards of education. I believe that will come about sooner or later. Let us hope that consultations will allow it to come about quickly. I warmly support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox: Once again I must reluctantly strongly oppose this amendment although it is much more plausible than the one we discussed recently. It is perhaps particularly unfortunate that a proposal has been put before us which is based on the premise of professionalism when so many teachers are unfortunately behaving in a way that is distinctly unprofessional at the present time with boycotts and with threatened strike action. Parallels have been drawn with other professions whose staff behave extremely professionally. For example, parallels have been drawn between the proposed GTC and the nursing profession and the UKCC. The members of a profession such as nursing are strongly committed in principle to a no-strike policy. They are opposed in principle to any behaviour which would act to the detriment of those who are vulnerable and for whom the professionals are professionally responsible. That is a significant factor in terms of the real world at the present time.
I must emphasise that there is nothing whatever to stop the many undoubtedly good, dedicated and professional teachers from setting up their own professional association. That could attain statutory recognition. That truly would be an association emanating from within the teaching profession itself like the royal colleges in the other professions. Such an association would have the credibility and the authority that comes from being a truly professional body. However, I and many others are deeply worried that, although this amendment only provides for consultation, it would put great pressure on the Secretary of State in due course to set up such a council with statutory powers. That would be in effect another vehicle under which trade union behaviour could arise of the type that is causing such confusion in our schools at the moment and problems for the pupils. I am not convinced that a proposal is desirable. I believe it will lead to great pressure to establish a body in the not too distant future which is not

999
desirable in the present circumstances and at the present time. Therefore I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment, plausible as it is.
Baroness Warnock: When the Merrison Committee, of which I was a member, undertook to look at the new constitution of the General Medical Council, two anxieties were foremost in our minds. My noble friend Lord Walton has mentioned both of those anxieties. One was the fear that with elected members the General Medical Council would become a branch of the BMA, or would at least be in the hands of the unions. That matter was debated in that committee at great length. It was decided in the end that the risk should be taken. The result of that decision has been described to the Committee. There is no doubt whatever that the General Medical Council, under its relatively new constitution, is just as detached and separate from issues of pay and conditions as it ever was before.
The second matter that preoccupied the Merrison Committee was the fact that the education of doctors needed urgently to be reconsidered. It was felt that the General Medical Council in its new form would be well fitted to look seriously at the training and education of doctors which always had been in the hands of the doctors themselves. One of the reasons that I so strongly support the consultation that is recommended in this amendment is that it fits in exactly with the Government's own new proposals for the training and education of teachers. If more of the training of teachers is to be undertaken increasingly in schools—I think that is absolutely right—and teachers are to be under the supervision of monitors, tutors, or whatever their supervisors are called, who are themselves classroom teachers, and the training is to be carried out as it is in a hospital when the training of staff is carried out under the eye of people who are practising the profession, it seems to me more than ever essential that the profession itself should be involved in setting out the guidelines and setting up the structures for the education of teachers. I am sure that no one would he more enthusiastic than the present Government to have a radical revision of some of the present content of teacher training.
No Member of the Government would be more enthusiastic than I at cutting out some of the garbage that goes under the name of teacher training. I believe that this will be put right when the training is carried out substantially in schools. However, that step makes no sense at all unless the profession itself has the statutory powers to set up the limits within which training must he given and the acknowledgment that must be given to teachers as regards when they are or are not fit to practise. I believe that that will happen and I hope that we will not turn down the chance to consult about how the process provided for by the amendment will be carried out. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, we would at least hear the reasons that lie behind a refusal to set up a statutory body.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I find myself in the unhappy position of agreeing with many of the arguments that have been made but disagreeing entirely with the conclusion that is reached. Teachers
1000
are, of course, the most important single factor of the whole of the provision of education. They solely are responsible at the end of the day for the standards which are delivered in the classroom. There is no more important issue than the way in which teachers are trained, the way in which they are motivated and how they relate to their pupils. It would be wonderful to think that the creation of a general teaching council, as is proposed in this amendment, would help to raise the professional standing and the professional standards of teachers. I know that is dear to all Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber.
However, I hesitate about the conclusion that has been reached for two reasons, particularly in the light of where we are now in the profession. I do not refer by that to the current industrial action. First, I have an unfortunately long memory and I remember the time in the 1970s when the then Labour government attempted to hold discussions and move towards the setting up of a general teaching council. The whole initiative fell by its own internal volition because the teaching unions could not, when it came to the punch, agree as regards who was to get four, six or three seats. Unfortunately the teaching unions fell out among themselves despite the will of the then government to bring them together into a general teaching council.
I know history has moved on since then. I greatly admire the drive and enthusiasm of Professor Tomlinson and his colleagues but I still fear that when it comes to deciding the composition of a council, that same kind of battle would break out again to the detriment of everyone and to the double confusion of the rank and file members.
However, the second and much more powerful anxiety I have concerns the issue that was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I refer to teacher training. The training of teachers has been in the hands of the profession for the past 20-odd years. It is seldom realised that the Secretary of State's powers have been delegated since the early 1960s—I believe the legislation was passed in 1959—to groups of professionals regionally based throughout the country. Even today, despite the existence of the committee for the accreditation of teacher education, the recommendations on all individual teaching courses are made by local committees whose composition is dominated by teachers. Therefore we can only look at the profession's failure to deliver a training which has provided for the needs of pupils.
I wish that I could tell the Committee how many times lovely young teachers committed to their pupils have said to me, "I feel that I am daily failing the children because in my training I was not given enough knowledge to teach them. I cannot answer their questions. I was never told how much I could expect of them". Every HMI report that I have read begins by stating how low are the expectations of teachers towards their pupils. They do not know what pupils ought to be capable of achieving because their training never contained such knowledge. Far too much of the training concentrated on telling those young teachers how difficult it is for children from deprived backgrounds or with learning difficulties ever

1001
to achieve. Yet the message that they needed was that those children can be allowed to achieve their potential, given the right teaching and help.
It is my long, bitter and indeed heart-rending experience of how ineffective the profession has been in delivering the training required, and which the many hundreds of thousands of members of the profession wish they had received, which now gives me grave anxiety about the enthusiasm to hand over the content and standards of training to yet more groups of professionals.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I do not believe that we need today to emphasise the merits of a general teaching council. That was largely done on 20th April when the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, moved a different but related amendment. His speech, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, were as comprehensive as it is possible to be in presenting the case for a GTC. At that time and again today my noble friend Lord Judd has added his own distinctive strengths to those speeches.
Our debate today must necessarily be concerned with the Minister's reply on that date. She stated:
"Such a relationship could function very well without being encumbered by a formal statutory role as proposed for a teaching council. But, I must stress that this is something for teachers to take forward themselves. It would not be appropriate for the Government to set up such a professional body."
Yes, I believe that it could function in such circumstances, but not, as she stated "very well". It would be lacking in strength, recognition and to some extent in real purpose.
The new clause does not force the Secretary of State to take a statutory power. It provides for the Secretary of State to undertake consultation—those are the important words—with a view to establishing a GTC. It makes clear that following consultation the Secretary of State shall report his findings to Parliament. That is surely a reasonable step to undertake.
If the Minister is not prepared to accept that proposal, I suspect that, contrary to what has been said on a number of occasions, the Government are not really interested in a GTC being established, whatever the circumstances and conditions. The Government will have the support of the Select Committee on education, science and the arts which, as we all know, recommended that the Government,
"create a GTC to work for the enhancement of the profession".
If the Government were starting from scratch in the matter, one could understand their hesitation. But apart from the view of the Select Committee—it was referred to in the previous debate and again today—there are 32 key associations committed to a general teaching council. Anyone who has had any dealings with Professor Tomlinson will be aware of the work that has been done and the enthusiasm for the proposal. As I believe the Committee may know, a General Teaching Council Limited exists and has
1002
done for some time. There is, too, the benefit—one noble Lord has referred to it—of the experience in Scotland.
Consultation by itself is important. However, on this issue it is simply not enough. It would be limited to matters thought by the Government, and to a lesser extent the teachers' associations, to be appropriate. What is more important is the need for a professional body competent to govern the profession and to offer advice and recommendations to Government, taking into account the whole of the profession. Most Members of the Committee would agree that few things in a modern society are as important as education, both from a personal standpoint and for the economic well-being of the country. The most important part of that service is the role of the teachers. All the fine words and elaborate arrangements, of which we hear so much these days, are of little use without the enthusiasm and dedication of the teacher in the classroom, the laboratory, the gym, the playing field, or wherever.
I am one of many who have said that teachers' morale is at a low ebb. I do not believe that that can be denied. However, I have never at any time doubted the teachers' integrity and strength of purpose. More than any other factor, I believe that the establishment of a GTC would raise morale in the profession. Most teachers require a "lift"—a tribute, a recognition of the vital work they do; a recognition that they are on a par with doctors, dentists, solicitors, nurses and other professionals. We cannot expect the usual response from the Government on this occasion that it would cost too much. If there is any cost at all, it would be negligible. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that issue when she replies.
There is considerable responsibility on the teachers too in this matter. They need continually to improve their academic and training standards, with training and retraining. A professional council without such standards would be almost without value and would mean very little in the eyes of the public and parents. That too must surely be of considerable importance. Most teachers, I believe, recognise that. A significant and continuing rise in standards in the teaching profession has been one of the most heartening features in recent years. It would be a central function of a GTC to ensure the continuation of those matters.
In his autobiography dealing with his education, Henry Adams said:
"A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops".
That is absolutely true; and to teachers it must be both heartening and frightening at the same time. There must be few of us who do not comment at some time during our lives on some of our former teachers.
The Minister will have readily noticed the repetition in the speeches today and in the previous debates. I suggest that it merely emphasises the importance of the points made. I am sure that the Minister will take great heed. I believe that the Committee today can take an important step forward in agreeing to the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: Unlike my two noble friends on these Benches, I support the amendment. People who

1003
are responsible for their own profession unite and produce much better work. My noble friend Lady Perry spoke with distress about young teachers who did not learn much at teacher training colleges. Why was the work not done well at some of the teacher training colleges? If there had been a general teaching council, they would have had a body to which to appeal. Much has been said in favour of the amendment by many Members of the Committee. Therefore I shall not repeat it except to say that I support the amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I should just like briefly to respond to what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said because I think she overstated her case, as she has on previous occasions in our debates. I think she also rather put the cart before the horse here. I feel, and a lot of us feel, that it is precisely because teachers have not been listened to for so long and have been overridden that we are in so much trouble, as we have been in recent years, that we have seen with the profession. We are in a sort of vicious circle. It reminds me rather of that apocryphal notice in the post office which read that, "Blotting paper will not be provided until the public stops taking it away". One has to step in and break the circle somehow and my strong feeling, and, I think, the strong feeling of many others in the Committee today, is that this amendment is, if not the way, at least one strong way in which to do that.
Lord Butterfield: I wish to say how grateful I am to so many people for picking up the theme of our previous debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for the work he has done in putting forward the amendment. I realise that in some quarters—indeed, in my own family—there is grave concern that a general teaching council would be hijacked by those parts of the profession who have a strong trade union tradition. I hope that the Minister can find some way of using the coming year to try to find a solution to a very important problem. That is all I wish to impress on the Committee. I feel that this is an important matter and a definite attempt is needed to solve it.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I too wish to add a word in support of what my noble friend Lady Faithfull said. As the principal of an Oxford college, I have had occasion to know young women who went on to the PGCE training course. It is quite true that many found themselves deeply unsatisfied by the training they were receiving and were anxious about some of it. But there was nowhere to which they could appeal. I believe that a professional body is necessary, provided, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, a way can be found to ensure that it does not become an institution simply for lobbying against whatever people do not want. It is important that there should be an organisation to which people know they can appeal on professional grounds about professional problems.
Lord Lucas: I would like to say that it is a pleasure to belong to professional associations. They are wonderful things. However, I wish to make two points about a general teaching council. First, surely the
1004
Government are right that, if this is to be a respected organisation, the initiative must come from the grass roots of the teaching profession. Something which is created by the Government surely cannot satisfy that requirement. Secondly, one ought to be cautious about professional associations: some are good, some are not so good. There are two with which I am associated. First, the accountants: there are many who would say that they have given a great deal of latitude to companies using creative accounting to the disadvantage of their shareholders. The other association is the Council of Lloyd's—and the less said about that the better. Surely, we must be careful about giving a newly created professional body powers over training before it has proved itself.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I spoke in favour of the previous recommendation that we should move towards a general teaching council, and I support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seems to ignore the work that has been done in setting up the General Teaching Council Limited. The enthusiasm, care and consultation have already taken place. There is a great deal of consensus behind the development towards a general teaching council, and that includes the teaching profession and many other associated bodies.
I do not believe that it should be imagined by the Committee that nothing has happened or that the teaching profession has been sitting back idle. It has done a great deal of work. The opportunity is now before us to take imaginative action to break into a situation which many of us recognise as unsatisfactory.
There is demoralisation among teachers. They do not always behave as responsibly and elegantly as we could wish. I take due note of the criticisms of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. But it is precisely because of that situation that we need to break in and take some decisive, imaginative action which indicates that we want teachers to accept full self-responsibility. In such a way, it seems to me, we might gain an improvement.
Baroness Cox: Perhaps I may briefly respond to the challenge put to me by the noble Lord, who said that I overstated my case. As the mood of the Committee was so constructive, I tried to be constructively critical, and perhaps I understated my case. I had both the unfortunate personal experience in the state sector of teachers who behaved extremely unprofessionally and, in terms of national research, experience showing the great indices of concern in under-performance and in international research. Tragically, many members of the teaching profession have not behaved professionally and not been accountable to their pupils for too long. That is why I believe that the time is ripe for the teaching profession itself to develop a professional body with the good, qualified, dedicated teachers who care and for that to be the grass roots from which a teaching council could then grow.
I do not believe that a teaching council imposed from the top, which could easily be another vehicle for trade union activity, is the answer. I should love to see the dedicated teachers—of which there are many—

1005
developing their own professional association. I do not know why they have not done so so far. That would be the basis, in due course, for a statutory council. However, it must be professionalism first and recognition afterwards.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. There is nothing imposed from on top. We already have documents from teachers, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will refer to that later. We have all the work done already, and are coming to the Government to say, "Will you give statutory recognition to this?" The work has already been done.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the noble Earl misses the point. What my noble friend is talking about is a record of being concerned about the professionalism of teachers. That is something which has not been addressed. What a general teaching council could do is simply come to us with a list of its members, and what worthy bodies they are. However, that does not address the points that have been made by my noble friend.
These arguments were well rehearsed on the first day of the Committee stage in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, to Clause 1. In response to that debate, I said that I recognised and shared the underlying concern to see teachers achieve a professional status and stressed that the Government have no wish to deny teachers the right to regard themselves and to be regarded as professionals, or to organise themselves into a professional body. But, I reaffirmed, as I again do so now, that the Government stand by the response they made to the Education Select Committee in 1990 that we remain unconvinced by the arguments in favour of a general teaching council. Recent events have served only to strengthen that view and to cast serious doubt on whether a teaching council, dominated as it might be by those very people who urge industrial action over testing, teacher appraisal and class sizes, strikes over pay and general opposition to the Government's reforms, could ever effectively promote or defend the professionalism of teachers, the interests of schools or of the education service as a whole.
The difference between us seems again to come down to the issue, not of whether there should be a professional body, but of whether this should be a body with statutory powers, as proposed for a general teaching council.
I referred in the previous debate to the attraction of various non-statutory options such as a Royal college of teachers or the Royal colleges as found in the health service. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that I believe that the osteopaths fall into that category, not into the category of a body with statutory powers. However, of course, I stand to be corrected if I am wrong on that. I repeat that we would be quite content to see established a professional body of such a kind which would promote the status of the profession and discuss matters of professional concern. Such a body could function very well without being encumbered by a formal statutory role. But I
1006
must re-emphasise that this is something for teachers to take forward; it is not the role of the Government to impose their own ideas on what such a professional body should look like.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, also referred to the Royal colleges. I believe he said that they were not trade unions; and that somewhat underlies our concerns here. No, they may not be trade unions, although I sometimes wonder why I hear the BMA giving its views on various aspects of how doctors are treated, and I need a little convincing about it. However, I believe that what we would have here, and what was certainly my experience in local government, is that the arguments about representation and the size of the representation would overcome all the genuinely good arguments that there are and the anxiety about the professionalism of teachers.
I remember with some distress the pain of the Professional Association of Teachers—one of our most professional associations—when it was trying desperately to get recognition at local authority level and was being pushed out constantly by the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, who constantly professed that they had more members and therefore they needed greater representation. It would be only a matter of time before we had that kind of debate getting in the way of what I believe concerns everybody in this Chamber; namely, promoting the professionalism of our teachers. Therefore, I do not believe that there is a great deal in a comparison with the GMC and the BMA relationship.
Yes, I rejected the idea of a statutory body concerned with the professionalism of teachers. But I did not reject the idea of a body concerned with the professionalism of teachers but not with statutory powers. I made that distinction, and Members of the Committee were right to remind me of it.
Reference has been made to the Scottish experience. There are some important distinctions between England and Scotland. I shall name just a few in reference to teaching. Certainly there are five times as many teachers. There are many more providers of teacher training, and a much greater diversity of courses, colleges and routes to qualified teacher status. Scottish teachers have only one trade union. That makes a great deal of difference. They do not have the internecine battling among six unions, as we have here in England. It would be much more difficult for a teaching council to undertake a regulatory function here than it is in Scotland, and arrangements for ensuring appropriate representation would indeed be more complex.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, said that such a body would be lacking in purpose. There is a serious difference of view here. If there is a gap at all at this moment for teachers, it is that they are not generally perceived to be as professional as we would all wish them to be. I do not believe that forming this kind of statutory body would achieve that end. That end would be achieved if professional teachers, concerned about their status and standing in the public eye, came together and concerned themselves

1007
with those matters. I have looked at the membership of the Professor Tomlinson organisation: eight directors; 30 associations; teachers' unions; teacher training bodies; and groups in the independent sector. I should like to see individual professional teachers coming together with one cause; namely, to enhance and do something about the professionalism of teachers.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, constantly carps away at my noble friend Lady Cox as overstating her case. I know that my noble friend has spent many years—not just hours, days and weeks, but years—investigating and researching her case. She always has a good, sound body of evidence to back her case.
The noble Earl said also in that same intervention that not only had my noble friend overstated her case, but that one of the reasons we are where we are at this moment is that we do not listen to teachers. I suggest to the noble Earl that he has been reading too many newspapers. Perhaps he would like—I shall make it available to him—to take my diary since 9th April last year, and that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to see not only on how many occasions we have talked to teachers, but when we have met them, both in the office and at school, and talked with all sorts of teacher bodies, which have had a real input. Indeed, one of the reasons we have a review of the national curriculum is almost precisely because of the feedback we have had from real teachers in real classrooms. When he believes the hype and says that no one is listening to teachers, I am afraid that I simply do not agree with him.
My noble friend Lord Lucas made two very good points. I believe very seriously that the establishing of any body concerned with the professional standing of teachers should come from the grass roots, from the professional teachers themselves. There is no divine right that setting up an established body with statutory powers necessarily makes it a good body. He gave good evidence of that.
The right reverend Prelate took my noble friend Lord Lucas to task for what he said, and said that he ignored a number of points. But he too, I believe, ignored the point that the Professor Tomlison body had somehow or other proved itself; it had set itself up well and it was working well. I do not disagree with any of that. It receives all the papers from my department, and we see it as a body that is doing a good job. But the idea seems to be that giving it statutory powers would make it even better. What I believe is being ignored here is that it would very quickly become a negotiating body; and then we get into the whole field of representation. For those reasons I believe that that would not be the right way.
We have given serious consideration to the issue and made the Government's viewpoint clear when giving evidence to the Select Committee. We believe that it is very much a matter for teachers themselves to consider the formulation of a professional body. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may say to my noble friend for the record that I think she has been given the wrong information about Scotland. There is more than one teachers' union. One is much bigger than the others. But they disagree just as much among themselves as do the teachers' organisations in England. I took the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, very seriously. Would that I agreed with him. But I believe that the way that the British Medical Association sees itself is very different to the way that teachers' unions see themselves. Did he say that the BMA was unashamedly a union? I was not sure whether my noble friend picked him up on that point.
Lord Walton of Detchant: It is a registered trade union, but not affiliated to the Trades Union Congress.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord said that it did the negotiating separately from the General Medical Council. I am sorry if I have misunderstood.
Lord Walton of Detchant: It is a very important point. I have to say, if I may disagree with one of the last points made by the Minister, that the General Medical Council has no negotiating function whatever. It is a statutory body, with its statutes and responsibilities defined by Act of Parliament. They do not include negotiation. That would be the proposal relating to the general teaching council.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I understood the noble Lord's point. But the point I wanted to make is that I believe the teachers' unions see themselves as having a very different role to that of the British Medical Association. There was a moment when Members on all sides of the Committee were anxious that the British Medical Association might go over the edge and get between patients and their treatment. Teachers' unions do not hesitate quite often to come between their pupils' education and union interests. That has happened quite often, albeit with members considering that that was the right way in the long run for the pupils. But they see themselves very differently. I think their contribution to a general teaching council would be very different. I believe that the comparison between a general teaching council and the General Medical Council is not valid.
Having looked a little further (since we are allowed to discuss this matter) at what happens in Scotland, I believe that to an extent that is a weakness. There is something quite important in what those who have spoken against the amendment have to say.
Baroness Seear: Nobody seems to have made the point, which seems to me extremely important, that if we had a general teaching council it might well be able to control some of the wilder approaches of the trade unions. That would be one of its very important functions. It is the absence of any self-governing body which gives such a clear and open road for the unions to do as they like. I suggest that if we had a general teaching council it is quite likely that we would not be having the problems over testing that we have now. They would have been dealt with by that body.
Baroness Blatch: I say to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, that I stand absolutely corrected. Not only did I use the wrong word, but I used it wrongly. The point I wanted to make is that if one looks at the functions of, for example, the GTC in Scotland, and one looks at its review and advisory role—which is what it is—on teacher training, entry standards, teacher supply and teacher discipline, in order for members to come together to do that they eventually form themselves into some sort of council. That becomes the body that produces that information and the negotiation, or the jockeying for position—that might be a better phrase—of the teacher unions. We know that the record is such that it would be dominated, and at this stage dominated by the two largest teacher unions, and the others would become dwarfed.
I also stand corrected by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour about the Scottish unions. If there are two, I can only say that one of them positively eclipses the other.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to all those who have participated in what has been a very good and constructive debate. It has shown this Chamber at its best. There has been an absence of party political rancour and a willingness to examine the issues in a dispassionate and constructive manner. As a relative newcomer to this Chamber, I have been struck by that attitude every time that the issue has been raised in debate. It has been approached in the same way. Therefore, in this amendment we have tried to take that spirit a little further by suggesting that there should be an opportunity for a properly informed consultation throughout the country with all those who have a stake in the future of education, including parents and governors, not just the professionals. After that consultation has taken place—the amendment asks for nothing else—the Minister should come back and report to Parliament. He should give his (or her) views on the future course, saying whether or not an organisation would be appropriate and, if so, what form that body should take. That seems to me to be a very wise way to proceed.
Perhaps I may make the point that, if we are to have this Chamber, that is one of the ways in which this Chamber can help the political processes of the country. When we consider that issues have become too polarised, not reflecting reality as they should, we have a chance to make constructive observations about how the situation could be taken forward in the national interest. I believe that Members on both sides have today demonstrated very well that sense of responsibility.
Having said that, I must be careful not to shoot myself in the foot. I am sure that Members would not want me to come to this Dispatch Box to be sycophantic and avoid reality. I am sorry to have to make the point, but it struck me that again from the Minister and from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we have heard exactly what is troubling so many people in the country; namely, an intransigence and absolute refusal to believe that anyone outside the ranks of their own party has an intelligent contribution to
1010
make in the analysis of how matters should be taken forward. The Minister shakes her head. But that is all that is asked for in this amendment.
I have to say that, coming from a family deeply involved in teaching, I find the repeated insinuations about the teaching profession deeply offensive. In every professional analysis that has been done—one only has to read certain serious newspapers today to see the evidence—to test public attitudes at the moment (I would not refer to the formal democratic events of last week), it is clear that that view of the teaching profession is not shared by the overwhelming majority of people in this country, who back the teachers on many of the big issues that are before us.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is very important for me to put on the record, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said, that nothing that I have said and nothing that I shall say in the future will cast doubt on the professionalism of teachers. All that I have said today—we have to agree that it is means to ends about which we are talking—is that I should like to see as much as possible done to destroy the myth and destroy the perception in the eyes of some of the public that teachers are not professional by allowing professional teachers to organise themselves into a professional body. The difference between us is that the noble Lord is talking about statutory functions and I am talking about the enhancement of professionalism. Nothing that I have said detracts from that. The noble Lord reads far more into what I said than in fact I meant.
Lord Judd: If I have been unfair to the Minister no one would be more genuinely sorry than I. All I can say is that there is an impression that has been formed. I believe in the candour of honest political exchange and it is important that I share that impression with the Committee if I have come to such a conclusion. I am glad that the Minister made her statement at the Dispatch Box just now. I hope that she can develop that spirit and that we shall feel it—it will not be just words—in the deliberations as we take the Bill forward.
It is absolutely clear that if there is to be any future for education in this country in the next century, teachers will be central to that future. Their commitment, their good will, their morale, their self-esteem and their contribution to what is right in training and right in standards are absolutely essential to that future. The Minister says that she is prepared to listen. She lays down the rules. She says that teachers must certainly be able to contribute and then they must take the form of organisation which she considers appropriate. Frankly, I find it extraordinary. All the teaching professions are involved in the deliberations of the GTC—the organisation set up to consider the situation at the moment. There is a great deal of good will between them in the deliberations that are taking place. They have come to the firm conclusion that a statutory body is required if the task is to be properly fulfilled. That is what they say.

1011
We simply ask the Secretary of State to take that conclusion away for a year, talk to the teaching profession and to others and come back with a reasoned reply on the basis of the discussion that they have had. The teachers have put their view. They have said what they believe is necessary. The Minister cannot have it both ways. If she wants to listen to them, they are putting a case. We suggest that that case should now be considered more fully.
I shall briefly deal with one or two other points before I sit down. First, I must respond to some interesting points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. As I have just emphasised, all the teaching organisations are among the 32 key organisations in the GTC movement at the moment. They have agreed between themselves a proposed constitution and a set of terms of reference. They have all made it absolutely clear that they support this amendment. Furthermore, they have agreed on initial representation and beyond that they agree that after the initial representation there should be direct elections to the GTC. The teaching unions are agreed on that. Surely that disposes of the point about the anxiety—indeed, if I might be a little provocative, the neurosis or the fear—of union domination.
The noble Baroness also dealt with the importance of teacher education. I am sure she would not mind my making the point that teacher education at the moment is governed by a government appointed statutory body: the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. It is not under professional control. It works under government regulations. We believe that the time has come to take education out of the daily turmoil of party politics and the rest of such controversy and establish, for the reassurance of the nation, parents and children, that it is in the hands—
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Let me repeat what I said. I know that we are at one in our overall aims. Despite the existence of CATE (the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education), the local committees which now make the recommendations to CATE about the acceptability or otherwise of courses are entirely composed of teachers and teacher trainers. For the years between 1959 and 1984, so I believe, the Secretary of State delegated all powers for the recognition of teacher education courses, so that 90 per cent. of the teachers who are now teaching in the system were trained in courses that were entirely approved by the area training organisations, as they were called. The ATOs and the CNAA's education committee were entirely professional bodies.
I am sorry but we cannot get away with saying that teacher education has been laid down in statute by the Secretary of State. The vast majority of recognition of courses has been left up to the profession itself. My contention was, very sadly, that it has been a very badly done job and has failed what is most important of all; namely, the children who are being taught. That is what we all care about. We are not here to defend the teachers, much as many of us would like to do so. We are here to defend the rights of children.
Lord Judd: That is an illustration of what I said earlier about how this debate has been particularly good. That, by any standard, was a long intervention, but it was worth every second and we were very glad to hear it. However, I just do not agree. The position is that, whoever the people making the recommendations, the control is very firmly ultimately with the Government. That is very clear. Again, it is clear from all the analyses that have been done that parents and the wider public are worried that we have political leaders who are very determined to have a direct hand in how things shall be done.
Baroness Blatch: That was an interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I thank him for allowing me to intervene. Perhaps I may ask a question. My understanding is that what is being advocated by the amendment—if, at the end of the consultation period it was felt desirable to have an agreement to introduce a general teaching council—is that it would be a review and advisory body. It would have no more powers than CATE has now. Therefore, at the end of the day, it would be the Government that would have control over supply of teachers and other matters.
Is the noble Lord saying that it should be more than the Scottish system? Is he saying that it should be more than a review and advisory body and that it should have powers and control?
Lord Judd: Time is a problem but perhaps the Minister could read what I said in my introductory remarks, where I dealt with that point fully. I spoke at some length about the powers and responsibilities to which the GTC could move forward once it was established.
I do not want to be accused of boring repetition by the Committee, but I made the point also—emphasised by several members of the Committee on all sides; the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was, as ever, extremely telling in her observations—that we are concerned with self-regulation and the self-esteem and responsibility which comes with it. As the profession feels that it is increasingly responsible, it will behave responsibly. It will enhance the quality of everything that is being done.
In thanking those who have spoken perhaps I can mention the noble Lord, Lord Walton. He made a powerful intervention. I was particularly grateful that he felt able to speak although he is in a slightly difficult position as chair of a commission that has not yet reported. But that in itself enhances the timeliness of the amendment. He is suggesting that when the report comes out it will be able to be part of the consultation; that what it says could be one of the matters to be discussed between teachers, governors, parents and others and the Government.
I should like to make one or two other points. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was emphatic that the initiative must come from the grass roots, and the Minister supported the point. The initiative and drive behind the debate today—there has been great commendation in the Committee for those involved—have at least come from the grass roots. That is what is so splendid. It is the teachers who are giving a

1013
lot of time, together with other educationists, in developing the ideas on what is necessary and how it can be tackled.
My final point, which should be stressed particularly in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is this. She argued that the history of teacher education was one of failure. There may be different views on that in the Committee; it may or may not be true. But what is clear to anyone who knows anything about education is that something new is desperately needed. It is recognised that in Scotland, where there is a GTC, whatever its strengths and weaknesses—I am glad we heard about its weaknesses as well as its strengths—teacher education has been relatively successful. That is positive news.
There is much more that could be said. But this Chamber has debated the issue several times. There is obviously goodwill on all sides towards the teaching profession. There is a recognition of how a GTC would enhance the standing of the profession, the feeling of self-responsibility within the profession and how it would provide a basis of hope for real partnership into the future. All we ask is that there is consultation for a year with a fully-informed report back to Parliament at the end of the year. I am sure that Members of the Committee would like to go on record as being in favour of that. We shall therefore pursue the amendment to a vote.
Perhaps I may conversely make the point that if this view does not prevail, the anxieties, which are rampant in the country, that many people in Westminster are unwilling to listen to reason, to the professionalism and common sense of people throughout the country, will take a great new twist of public cynicism one stage further. I beg to move.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 246) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

David, B.

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Airedale, L.

Desai, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

Ardwick, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Attlee, E.

Ennals, L.

Aylestone, L.

Faithfull, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Falkender, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkland, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Foot, L.

Bottomley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Galpern, L.

Brimelow, L.

Geraint, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Butterfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

[Teller.]

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Gregson, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Grey, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hampton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hamwee, B.

Craigavon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Dainton, L.

Healey, L.

1014

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Peston, L.

Hollick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hughes, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rea, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Redesdale, L.

Jay, L.

Richard, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Richardson, L.

Jeger, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Serota, B.

Judd, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kintore, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strafford, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mayhew, L.

Thurlow, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mishcon, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Molloy, L.

Warnock, B.

Moran, L.

White, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wigoder, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ogmore, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Palmer, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elton, L.

Addison, V.

Ferrers, E.

Annaly, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Archer of Weston-super-Mare, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Geddes, L.

Arran, E.

Goschen, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Granard, L.

Astor, V.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Auckland, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Bessborough, E.

L.

Birdwood, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blatch, B.

Harrowby, E.

Blyth, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Borthwick, L.

Henley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Holderness, L.

Bridgeman, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hothfield, L.

Butterworth, L.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Huntly, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ingrow, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnock, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Killearn, L.

Cawley, L.

Kimball, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Leigh, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Liverpool, Bp.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Long, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lucas, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cox, B.

Lyell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cranborne, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cross, V.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Cumberlege, B.

Mancroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Margadale, L.

Denham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Merrivale, L.

Donegall, M.

Mersey, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mountgarret, V.

1015

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Spens, L.

Nelson, E.

Stewartby, L.

Norfolk, D.

Strange, B.

Norrie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Orkney, E.

[Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sudeley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Swansea, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Swinton, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Tebbit, L.

Perth, E.

Teviot, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rees, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rennell, L.

Vivian, L.

Renton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wakeham, L.

Rodney, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Westbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wise, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wynford, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Young, B.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and amendement disagreed to accordingly.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce Lord Wilberforce moved Amendment No. 246ZA:
Before Clause 217, insert the following new clause:
("Corporal punishment
Without prejudice to section 47 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, no corporal punishment shall be given in any school which would be a breach of Article 3 or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, as have many other Members of the Committee. I have the impression that it enjoyed a certain measure of support. I appreciate that the Government may have difficulties with its wording, particularly in its reference to the specific articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. If this corresponds with the Government's intentions and a corresponding willingness is found on their side, I shall be more than glad to take the amendment away and discuss it with the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, or their advisers, with a view to bringing forward another amendment at the Report stage, either in my name, or preferably in the Government's name, which will deal with the matter. If that fits in with what the Government intend, I shall be very happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am very much in favour of what my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches has said. I shall not delay the Committee for any period of time. There can be no objection in principle to the amendment and I hope that the Government's consultations will end in a favourable response. I really do think that on this question, which is one of principle, we have to legislate sooner or later for the United Kingdom as a whole.
If this amendment goes through I think that the Government ought to give some hope to those of us who on the whole support very strongly the feelings of Scotland about its separate system and Northern Ireland too and perhaps even the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man. We cannot be heard to speak with two
1016
voices on this matter since all that my noble and learned friend has asked is that we should obey the terms of the convention to which we are already parties. I therefore think that the Government have an obligation, if the amendment results in a happy conclusion, to consider the whole situation.
Lord Renton: I support what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has said and remind the Committee that in the very last subsection of the Bill, on page 163, we find that potentially the Bill can apply to Scotland. I shall read the subsection for the record:
"The amendment or repeal by this Act of an enactment which extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland extends also to Scotland or, as the case may be, Northern Ireland".
We can take all that in our stride.
Lord Henley: I note what my noble friend Lord Renton says. I would also accept the concerns of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. Obviously, if we are going to do something here, we must be fairly sure that it extends to the whole of the United Kingdom—that is, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I would not include, as my noble and learned friend did, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, where different conditions apply.
All I can do in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, is to repeat the assurance that I gave when we debated the earlier amendment. We are sympathetic to the ideas behind the noble and learned Lord's amendment but for the reasons that he gave, and I gave earlier, I do not think that we would be able to accept the amendment as it is. Certainly, we are willing to consider, in consultation with the noble and learned Lord and, as I said earlier, others, the form of a possible amendment that we might then be able to bring forward at a later stage in the Bill.
Viscount Mountgarret: Like my noble friend probably was, I was certainly surprised that there was not more vocal support in favour of the Front Bench on the previous amendment. I regrettably arrived a little late to hear the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I felt that it would be a little discourteous to intervene in the debate if one had not had the advantage of the opening overs. Nonetheless, for various reasons, certainly as far as I am concerned, I hope he will bear in mind that a number of Members of the Committee might think that to accept either of the amendments or something on these lines could be a very retrograde step and might not be in the interests of what is, understandably, the feeling of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I would just ask my noble friend to bear in mind that silence does not necessarily mean that there was no support.
Lord Henley: I am sure the whole Committee is sorry that we missed my noble friend's intervention on the earlier amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend for his support in the Division Lobby. I would hope that it was as a result of the concession that I was able to make that other Members of the Committee, who possibly do not share exactly the same views as my noble friend, were able to support me on that occasion.
Baroness Young: I should just like to place on the record that when I spoke earlier I perhaps said that I was not in such full support of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. But on reflection, and on hearing the debate, I am very pleased that my noble friend is taking this matter back. I see this as a positive way forward in a rather tricky situation.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I may say a brief word in case otherwise silence might be misinterpreted that I did not support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I would be very upset if anything I had said earlier could have been interpreted in that way. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for moving the amendment. If the Government are able to phrase it in such a way that it does what the noble and learned Lord wants, then a step forward will have been made. I shall be very interested indeed to see the outcome of the noble and learned Lord's initiative.
Lord Wilberforce: I am very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Henderson. His views are very close to mine. There is very little difference between us. I shall certainly take the benefit of his advice and wisdom before proceeding further in the matter. On the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, I am now very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 246ZB:
Before Clause 217, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of children from abuse
—(1) If at any time a governing body are satisfied that any member of the governing body is unfit to discharge the functions of a member on the grounds that they appear to present a risk to the physical or emotional well-being of pupils the governing body may by notice in writing to that member suspend him from office.
(2) Permanent removal from office, which shall include office in any county or voluntary controlled or grant-maintained school, following a suspension under subsection (1) above shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: In the Second Reading debate I put myself on record as saying that I thought that if we were preparing an Education Bill to take us into the next century, one of the issues which we must address, within the context of the quality of education, was the conditions in the classroom; namely, the size of classes and the rest, with which teachers were having to contend.
The problem of oversized classes must be addressed prior to any examination of surplus places. The amendment to Clause 219 introduces a safeguard against the Secretary of State directing the local education authority or funding agency to propose a reorganisation—
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My noble friend is dealing with the wrong amendment.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I can help the Committee. The amendment called was Amendment No. 246ZB which we have already spoken to on an earlier
1018
occasion. I believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is trying to explain to his noble friend. I also suspect that it is Amendment No. 246AA, when we come to it, which the noble Lord will wish to address.
[Amendment No. 246ZB not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 246ZC and 246A not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 246AA:
Before Clause 217, insert the following new clause:
("Order on class size
The Secretary of State shall make an order to provide guidance on the ratio of teachers to pupils and class sizes in primary, secondary and special schools for infant education, nursery classes, practical groups, special educational needs, mixed range classes, post sixteen groups, standard classes and pupils with statements.").
The noble Lord said: I am very grateful to the Committee for being so tolerant. I also thank the Minister for having dealt with the matter with his customary skill. I believe that the arguments are equally relevant to this point and I shall not go over them in full. The problem of oversized classes needs to be addressed prior to any examination of surplus places.
The amendment to Clause 219 introduces a safeguard against the Secretary of State directing the local education authority or the funding agency to propose a reorganisation of its schools without his giving due regard to the effects on other local schools in terms of the sizes of classes or groups in which pupils are taught. This amendment seeks to prohibit the Secretary of State from ordering such reorganisation without considering the implications for pupil:teacher ratios if it can be shown that the schools affected by such an order would then have classes or teaching groups which exceeded in size that limit on class size which may be prescribed by order of the Secretary of State under the new clause before Clause 217.
It is sensible that reorganisation proposals take account of the overall circumstances locally. The amendment seeks to establish an appropriate context for any proposals and/or decisions by the Secretary of State. Class size has a significant impact on children's education. All six teacher unions are agreed on suggested limits to class size, but I understand that the Government are dismissive of such limits.
The new clause provides for the Secretary of State to detail government guidelines on class size. Perhaps it will be helpful to illustrate what we are talking about. The unions are arguing together with one voice that in infant education there should be a maximum class size of 23; that is, classes consisting wholly or partly of children in the first year of infant education. As regards nursery classes, there should be a maximum class size of 20. They should be staffed on the basis of two adults: one qualified teacher and one nursery nurse. In practical groups there should be a maximum class size of 18 including GCSE and other classes which involve teacher assessment of pupils. That was agreed in 1986, but things have changed on the examination front since then. The staffing ratios for special education needs, as recommended in DES circular 11/90, are that for a mixed age range there should be a maximum class size of 21. For post-16

1019
groups, the staffing establishment should ensure a pupil:teacher ratio of no more than 10:1. In standard classes there should be a maximum of 26 other than for those which I have already illustrated. For pupils with statements, class sizes are to be adjusted appropriately where pupils are being integrated into the mainstream classes.
It is said that one factor that hinders those propositions for smaller classes is the absence of research showing the positive benefits in terms of pupil achievement associated with smaller classes. However, it has to be said in all honesty that common sense suggests that smaller classes must mean more teacher time per pupil. Most teachers would say that they could be more effective and more able to stretch and support each pupil appropriately if the classes were smaller.
It is not just a generality like that. There are findings based on research. For example, in 1984 the Education Select Committee of the other place stated in its report Achievement in Primary Schools:
"We support the aim of reducing the sizes of registration classes of 30 and over".
The junior school project in inner London found in 1984 that:
"Class size is particularly relevant: smaller classes with less than 24 pupils had a positive impact upon pupil progress and development, especially in the early years".
Following a study of primary teachers introducing the national curriculum, a report entitled Thirteen Hundred and Thirty Days (1990), found:
"lack of time was perceived as the major obstacle to teaching the National Curriculum, but teachers of classes over 25 identified large classes as the chief obstacle".
Over recent years, falling roles have presented the opportunity for class sizes to be reduced to more acceptable levels and thereby lead to improved educational standards. But sadly, however, the decline in pupil numbers has been viewed as an opportunity to reduce public expenditure. I argue that that is a short-sighted and counter-productive economy, if ever there was one, because effective education is the best possible investment in our nation's future.
Local authorities currently fund teacher staffing in schools on the basis of authority-wide, pupil:teacher ratios. However, that ratio does not adequately reflect the actual class sizes existing in our schools. The funding of schools is determined by the formula applied under schemes for the local management of schools. The internal allocation of a school's budget is determined by its governing body and the introduction of the national curriculum has caused schools to reallocate resources. That reallocation, together with the continued constraints imposed by central government, has caused the national pupil:teacher ratio to increase.
It is critical that agreement on class sizes should be reached now in order that the excessive workload resulting from oversized classes can be reduced and parents and students can be guaranteed class size levels which are supportive of effective teaching. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I rise briefly to support these two amendments which also bear the name of my noble friend Lord Ritchie who is unfortunately unable to be
1020
here. Very fundamental issues are put forward. The first amendment refers to the appropriate size of a class. Surely we are tackling something which is very basic to the quality of education provided within the classroom. It is very interesting in that there is reference to,
"mixed range classes, post sixteen groups [and] standard classes".
Surely some definition given by the Secretary of State would give everyone some target to aim at; namely, the funding council and the local education authority. It would also give the opportunity to set down standards which would ensure that the type of education which is being planned from the centre will be capable of being carried out. I recommend this amendment very strongly to the Committee.
Lord Renton: I am sure that every Member of the Committee will agree that we should, if possible, both nationally and locally, try to avoid classes which are too big. But this amendment gives rise to great practical problems of implementation. I am not worried so much about the particular technical method by which it is done. To have regulations governing the matter would be unthinkable for reasons which I hope will become clear as I continue. The most that one could hope for would be a code of practice. I would not object to departmental circulars from time to time which could reflect the varying position.
Surely, however, the size of classes nationally and locally must depend upon two factors over which the Government have practically no control and nor have local education authorities much control. The first is the availability of enough teachers, and the other is the number of pupils. That depends on local birth rates and on the movements of population that occur from time to time. There have been tremendous movements of population in East Anglia under town development schemes and because of new towns. Mostly, people have moved out of London, but some have moved to East Anglia from towns in the Midlands. Having been so prominent and distinguished a member of Cambridgeshire County Council before she came to your Lordships' House, I am sure that my noble friend Lady Blatch is familiar with that particular problem.
Frankly, to attempt to limit the size of classes nationally to 21 pupils per class is asking for the impossible and for the impracticable. As I hope that I have made clear, the local situation is likely to vary very much according to the number of teachers and the number of students. Therefore, although we accept the ideal which, if I may say so, was so sensibly put forward, as always, by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, we cannot really hope to achieve just what he wants.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may make a slightly different point on these two amendments, which I wholeheartedly support. Looking ahead, Clause 219 states:
"Where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the provision … is excessive then, for the purpose of remedying the excess"—
he may make certain orders. However, it seems difficult to see how the Secretary of State can judge what might be "excessive" unless he has previously

1021
judged what is "appropriate". If the Minister is going to resist the amendment, I hope that she can explain to us either at this point or, if she feels it more appropriate, when we come to Clause 219, how the Secretary of State will arrive at an opinion that the provision may be "excessive" without the basis which is suggested in the amendment.
Baroness Young: I am sure that we all deeply sympathise with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is making about smaller classes. Everybody who is interested in education will support that point of view. However, I am bound to say to him and, to my noble friend the Minister that I share very much the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Renton. I do not think that it is appropriate to write such a provision onto the face of the Bill. In the course of my life I have seen various numbers adduced as the right size for a class and no doubt all of us would have a view on that. It is one thing to say something about class sizes in departmental guidance or something like that, but to write it on to the face of the Bill would make for great difficulties. Quite apart from anything else, suppose that one changed one's view about the right size for a class, would that mean amending the legislation? That seems the wrong way to go about things.
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised, I see exactly what she was driving at, but I suspect that in many authorities one will be able to identify surplus places where schools have become less popular for one reason or another. When making that distinction, one could look also at the pupil:teacher ratio, which I recognise is not the same thing as class size, but which is obviously a very real measure. My impression is that the pupil:teacher ratio has steadily improved over the years—perhaps my noble friend the Minister will confirm this when she replies—and that it is now at what would have been regarded as a very acceptable level 20 years ago. So for all those reasons, although I share the view about small classes, I do not think that the amendment would be appropriate on the face of the Bill.
Lord Lucas: This amendment appears to me to strike at the heart of local management of schools. The whole emphasis of the changes over recent years has been to give more flexibility, more power, more decisions at a local level—at the school level. The basic class size is dictated by the amount of money that the school has. If you have a certain number of pupils, most of the money you get is related to the number of pupils you have. Teachers cost a certain amount. The basic level of staffing—the basic size of classes—is already constrained enough by the amount of money that the school has. To constrain it further would almost entirely eliminate a school's ability to decide how to spend its money. It could not, for instance, decide to employ a very experienced teacher to teach a few more pupils. It would become very difficult to employ good, experienced teachers. You would have to be always going for people at the median or lower level in order to make them cheap enough to get the class sizes down.
1022
It is very strange to me to hear the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who has argued so much against centralised power, to be putting forward this amendment which appears to remove all—effectively all—delegation from schools. At a local level, I believe that the problem that the noble Lord addresses does not exist. There is much pressure from parents for smaller class sizes. One of the main reasons that they choose schools is that the class sizes are smaller. There is therefore enormous pressure on schools at a local level to follow just the sort of principles which the noble Lord is advocating and I believe that pressure at that level is much more effective and much more appropriate than anything that could be done in this Bill.
Lord Skidelsky: Perhaps I may make just one point to reinforce something that my noble friend Lady Young said. Surprising as it may seem, the research evidence shows no strong correlation between a school's performance and its pupil:teacher ratio. Within wide parameters, one gets equal results with both larger and smaller classes. There is an enormous amount of American research to that effect. It is also true that in Japan the average size of classes and the pupil:teacher ratio is not as good as we want it to be in England. Therefore, whereas it is a commonsense idea—other things being equal, I think that most people would support the idea of smaller classes, more teachers and fewer pupils to each teacher—the research evidence shows that that is much less important for the success of schools and pupils than other factors in a school. To specify a ratio in instructions from the Department for Education is simply nonsense in my view. These things should be allowed to develop in line with local management of schools and with local ideas, as my noble friend Lord Lucas suggested.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friends for the way in which they have approached this issue. I very much agreed with my noble friend Lord Renton when he noted the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, presented his amendment.
This is something about which we all feel concern. It is important that, as far as practicable and given always that the resources available for employing teachers will always be finite, we should employ as many teachers as practicable. For that reason, although we are all entirely happy with the objective of this amendment, we are talking about means to ends.
My noble friend Lord Lucas made the point about how this matter cuts across local management of schools. My own authority gave schools their budgets long before it was fashionable to do so—back in 1980–81. We found out very early on that when schools have their own money they do more than any local education authority ever did to protect and, indeed, enhance their pupil:teacher ratios. We have already found evidence that schools in the grant-maintained sector which have control of their own money protect the number of teachers whom they employ and, where possible, enhance that teacher input.

1023
I turn to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who was worried about Clause 19 and its implementation. It must be seen that the powers of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would not be triggered unless a view were taken that the local authority or the funding agency, whichever was appropriate, had not fulfilled its obligation to address the whole issue of spare places. We are talking about something different in this connection; we are talking about spare places. It is inconceivable that my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State, or any other Secretary of State from any other party, will trigger that power without having good evidence, which must be supplied, showing that there is an issue of spare places. If the Secretary of State used his own power to bring forward his own proposals, that would be subject to public inquiry and would be part of the evidence that would be taken into account.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, which also stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, would have the effect of interfering with the local management of schools, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, and would impose a constraint on heads and governors on how they might best allocate their school budgets. We have sought to introduce the local management of schools so that decisions about the deployment of staff, whether on pupil:teacher ratios or on class sizes, can be taken at school level. That is where we believe such decisions need to be made and where, if schools are to respond to the needs of pupils and parents, it should happen.
My noble friend Lady Young referred to what has happened in recent years. It is worth noting that in 1979 the number of classes in the country with more than 30 pupils was 27.4 per cent. in primary schools. In 1992 the figure was reduced to 20.1 per cent. In secondary schools the figure was 10.3 per cent. in 1979 and now the number of classes with more than 30 pupils is down to 4.3 per cent. Even where the pupil:teacher ratio during that period has fluctuated only slightly we still see that the size of classes has been addressed by local education authorities and by the schools.
Members of the Committee would not expect me to go back on what we have achieved so far in improving the way in which operational management has been devolved to schools. For all the reasons that have been given—not because it is not desirable to have smaller classes but because of operational autonomy and always the flexibility that local authorities and schools will need in deploying their budgets—I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Judd: I am grateful for the observations that have been made. In view of certain courageous stands which have been made in recent days, I do not wish to take issue with the basis on which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, reached his conclusions. However, in respect of this issue I must challenge him slightly. The most recent American research, which was undertaken in Tennessee and which was quoted in a briefing in March 1993 by the National Commission on
1024
Education, shows a clear correlation particularly for pupils in socially deprived areas. That is a matter which we must take into account.
The second issue, which perhaps we have not debated as we should have and which perhaps I should have emphasised more in my introductory remarks, is that we argue that the ratio should be a consideration and that guidance should be given prior to reorganisation. We leave room for judgment but it is a consideration, and a major consideration.
The only other point I wish to make is that we have a thriving private independent sector in education. I am fairly certain that any objective research carried out into the reasons for that thriving sector will quickly establish that one issue which parents consider to be important is that they will be able to guarantee their children's education in smaller classes. From that standpoint it is an ideal for which we should be striving in the state sector. However, I sense that this is not the hour to pursue the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 246B:
Page 129, line 11, leave out ("after subsection (1)") and insert ("in subsection (1), after "county school" in paragraph (d) there is inserted "or to transfer a county school to a new site in the area" and, after that subsection").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 247 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 248 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 248A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 217, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 218 [Proposals for establishment etc. of voluntary schools by promoters, etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 248B
Page 129, line 34, after ("schools)") insert ("in subsection (1), after "the school" in paragraph (b) there is inserted "or to transfer the school to a new site" and").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 249 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 249A:
Page 130, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (3) of that section there is inserted—
"(3A) Where the proposals are to transfer a school to a site in a different area, objections under subsection (3) above to the proposals may also be made by any ten or more local government electors for that area."
( ) In subsection (6) of that section, after "below" there is inserted—
("(a) in the case of any proposals approved by the Secretary of State to transfer a controlled school to a new site, it shall be the duty of the local education authority to implement the proposals (and any associated proposals for a change in the character of the school) so far as they involve the provision of premises or the removal or provision of equipment, and

1025
(b) in any other case".
( ) At the end of that section there is added—
"(8) Where proposals under this section for the transfer of a school to a site in a different area are approved—

(a) in the case of any voluntary school—

(i) the references in subsection (6) above to the local education authority are to the authority for the new area, and

(ii) upon the transfer the duty to maintain the school shall transfer to that authority, and

(b) in the case of any controlled school, the First Schedule to the Education Act 1946 (provision of premises by maintaining authority) shall apply as if the duty to maintain the school had been transferred to the local education authority for the new area.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
Clause 218, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 219 [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 249B:
Page 130, line 23, leave out ("schools") and insert ("primary or secondary schools as the case may be,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 249C, 251A, 253A, 254, 254ZA, 254ZC, 254ZD and 254C to 254E. I understand that Amendments Nos. 250, 251 and 253 will be dealt with separately.
After the major issues which we have discussed today Amendments Nos. 249B and 249C appear to be minor issues. I tabled the amendments because I was not clear how in Clause 219 LEA and grant-maintained provision were related to one another. For instance, how can provision in one sector be regarded as excessive unless provision in the other sector had been assessed? It appeared to me that the probing amendment suggesting that one should have regard to—I apologise. I am reading notes which were written while on a train last weekend and I started to read the wrong note. However, I have an anxiety about Clause 219.
The point is that if the Secretary of State considers that provision for primary or secondary education is excessive, as drafted the order is directed to the LEA or to the grant-maintained sector as a whole and does not distinguish between primary and secondary schools. The probing amendments suggest that at the relevant points in the Bill there should be a reference to primary or secondary schools, as the case may be.
The substantive amendments in the group are Nos. 254ZA and 254D, which are also tabled in my name. The first amendment suggests that if, after taking into account responses to consultations, an authority is of the opinion that it is not appropriate to publish particular proposals, it shall inform the Secretary of State that that is so and give reasons. I tabled the amendment because under Clause 219 a new power is given to the Secretary of State which appears to be unchallengeable. The amendments are designed to allow a reasoned disagreement with the Secretary of State and then, under Clause 222, recourse to a public inquiry.
I do not believe that the Secretary of State would wish to be accused of making use of a power of direction which is unfettered and unchallengeable. The relationship between Clauses 219 and 222 provides that the main content of the Secretary of State's directions under the first clause may not be challenged in a later inquiry. Subsection (6) states:
"It shall not be open to the inquiry to question the principles specified in the order under section 219 or 220 of this Act".
May there not be circumstances in which an LEA or funding authority has a strong case for deciding not to comply with the direction? Even so, Clause 222 would prevent that case being heard. Should it be solely in the gift of the Secretary of State to withdraw or vary his direction if he thought it was wrong? It seems to me that that is an inadequate arrangement and a public inquiry would provide a safeguard.
A public inquiry would have the power to question the original direction which is at the root of the dispute. The amendment deals with the responses to consultations so that reasons for non-compliance would rest mainly on new evidence; in other words, the best type of consultative process is one whereby not merely are there reactions to consultations but those to whom they are directed are in a position to react to them. I am sure that the Government will not wish to ignore entirely the result of local consultations with regard to the removal of surplus places. I take the points made by the Minister this afternoon with regard to the process, but local knowledge and opinion, as well as being accepted by those who are concerned in government now as being important, should be seen through this mechanism to be on the face of the Bill. That should give the Secretary of State the protection that the procedure is in place.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, tabled Amendment No. 254ZD which proposes an inquiry. One reason that I am glad that we shall debate this issue is that I am concerned that subsection (5) of Clause 222 may jeopardise the effectiveness of paragraph (4) (a). The Secretary of State must refer certain of his proposals to an inquiry unless he forms the opinion that his own proposals should be implemented, unless he subsequently forms a different opinion which, as I understand it, must mean that he changes his mind. I shall be glad to hear from the Minister whether the relationship between subsections (4) and (5) is as I have interpreted it to be. If, as I understand it may be, the important words are:
"appear to him to be related to the proposals made under section 221";
in other words, where there are unrelated proposals, then the Secretary of state would be free to determine them separately. That was information obtained from the department but I should be glad to have the Minister's confirmation of it.
If that is so, the Committee will be interested to know what are related proposals and what is separate for this purpose. It seems to me that there could be scope for the Secretary of State to tilt the balance in favour of one type of provision over the other. Given the Government's anxiety to promote grant-maintained provision, he may tilt it in favour of grant-maintained provision over LEA-provision by

1027
choosing to settle issues concerned with grant-maintained provision before dealing with LEA-provision. That goes back to Clause 219 where LEA and GM places are to be dealt with separately. The reason that I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is that a public inquiry for an area simultaneously covering both grant-maintained and LEA places would deal with the anxieties that I have raised. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: Do I understand that the Secretary of State for Education can make an order for the local authority or the funding agency to close a school or vary the purposes of that school? I believe that there are 20,000 schools in the country. That being so, on what basis can a Secretary of State evaluate whether a school should close or its purpose change?
Amendment No. 254 lays down that the community where the school is situated should be consulted. Consultation should take place at a time when the proposals are still at a formative stage; sufficient reasons should be given for the proposals to permit of intelligent consideration and response from the community; adequate time should be given for consideration and response; and the product of the consultations should be conscientiously taken into account.
I refer in particular to small village, infant and primary schools. In the past many small schools have been closed. I refer not exclusively to village schools because some schools in the centres of large towns have been closed. Such closures have caused great distress to the families, to the villages and small communities in the towns. The hours are not long for young children in infant and primary schools. It is not in their best interests to have to travel by bus or be taken by car 10 miles to the nearest school. It makes for great difficulties for the parents. It may be that parents have one or two older children at schools which are not close by. For example, a parent may have to fetch one child at 3 o'clock from a school which may be 10 miles away, return with that child and then go back to collect the older children. By the same token, where a primary or infant school closed in a built-up area, traffic and difficulties as regards reaching the school must be borne in mind.
One must consider also the ethos of a village. In times past, and indeed today, the village school is part of the community. To take away that village school is to take away something from the community.
As regards transport, if a school is closed in a village and it is 12 or 13 miles to the next school, is the local authority or the funding agency responsible for transport? Who pays for the transport? I speak on behalf of the small village schools, many of which have been closed to the detriment of the children from that village and community.
Lord Skidelsky: I do not propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 250, 251 and 253 with this group of
1028
amendments. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 250 separately and to the other amendments at the conclusion of this debate.
Lord Judd: Our argument as regards Amendment No. 253A is that the Secretary of State's powers of direction are at present too broad. In directing an authority to address a problem, we submit that the Secretary of State should identify the problem and the timescale for the proposals to be brought forward. It is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to fetter the discretion of the funding authorities in the manner in which they address the problem.
It is not unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have a power to direct the relevant funding authority—whether this is the LEA or a funding agency or council—to address the need to rationalise school places. As presently drafted, subsection (3) (b) gives the Secretary of State wide powers to specify the principles to be applied by the funding authority in complying with his direction. The nature or scope of those principles is neither defined nor limited on the face of the Bill. It is not really clear why that power is required. In broad terms, rationalising provision should be undertaken to save public money and improve the efficiency of the service.
There are a number of factors that a responsible funding authority should always take into account, many of which will be specific to a particular locality. The prime concern is the geographical distribution of the population of children of school age within the area, and future changes, having regard to demographic and population movements in and out of the area linked to economic and social development. Such changes are more difficult to predict over a long time-scale, but the large investment measured both in cash and in disruption of existing patterns of education requires that authorities should be as sure as they can be that changes are necessary, appropriate and justified in all the circumstances.
While the technical problems associated with rationalisation are significant, there are also invariably social and political considerations to be taken into account. Closing schools is rarely popular. The need for a school in a particular geographical location can vary according to the social characteristics of local communities as much as, or more than, the physical distribution of the population. For all those reasons, the way in which a rationalisation is approached, as well as the task itself, is a matter best determined locally by those with local knowledge. We argue that it is difficult to see how the Secretary of State could be in a position to identify more accurately than a locally based authority how best to approach rationalisation.
I should like to speak briefly on Amendment No. 254ZC. The powers of the Secretary of State in respect of a direction to secure additional school places is again too broad. The amendment seeks to substitute a requirement that the Secretary of State should define the problem rather than influence the approach of the funding authority in its solution. As the Committee will realise, the arguments and reasoning behind the amendment are very similar to those in the amendment to Clause 219 which it parallels. The present amendment is arguably of slightly less

1029
importance, as bringing forward plans to increase provision is considerably less contentious than finding ways to reduce it. Nevertheless, where it is necessary to increase provision, it is undesirable for the Secretary of State to have powers to intervene in advance to influence the way in which a statutory authority exercises its power. His ability to control the final outcome of plans for new school building should be adequate.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, wishes to speak. I give way.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is better for me to speak now rather than speaking at the end of his speech. The noble Lord quite rightly said that the local authority should have the last word in the matter. However, if he looks carefully at Clause 219, he will see that all that it does is enable the Secretary of State to require the local authority to consider the matter within the powers under the Bill.
Lord Judd: That is an interesting point. During an earlier amendment under discussion this evening we were told by Members from the other side of the Committee that "to require" was a draconian accretion of power to the centre. I am sure that the noble Lord will realise that that argument can be used both ways.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to Amendment No. 254ZD. Its purpose is to cause a public inquiry to be held whenever rationalisation proposals are brought forward which result in objections. I must say a few more words because it is a most important issue. The White Paper Choice and Diversity: a New Framework for Schools underlined the Government's intention to remove surplus places from many schools. It estimated that there were 1.5 million surplus places being maintained, at a considerable cost to the public purse.
Local education authorities recognise that there is a need to remove surplus places in order to re-allocate the money to direct education provision for pupils. However, the work of LEAs in that area has been enormously hampered in recent years because of the tendency of schools that are proposed for closure or significant change to opt for grant-maintained status. But the threat of schools applying for grant-maintained status has clearly, it seems to us, prevented LEAs from developing rationalisation proposals. It should be noted that, of the approximately 500 operating grant-maintained schools, a significant number decided to seek grant-maintained status before the LEA began consulting on rationalisation proposals, although it was known that such proposals were in the air.
As I understand it, last year local education authorities were sent school-by-school information by the DFE which, much to the bewilderment of some LEAs, included a number of inaccuracies such as information on schools that had already closed and other distorting effects; for example, an LEA which by DFE figures should have been proposing the closure
1030
of six primary schools but which was in fact proposing to open a further one to meet the additional need in the area.
LEAs had to respond to the Secretary of State's request by the end of October. However, I understand that the AMA, for one, advised its members that they should not respond until a ministerial meeting had been held to discuss the issues. My information is that two meetings have now been held—one in December and the other, the most recent, at the beginning of May. It should be noted that the ACC is in full support of that initiative. It is not the AMA acting alone.
At the first meeting in December, Mr. Forth, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, was, I am told, receptive to ideas put forward by the AMA to help with rationalisation of school places. A paper was subsequently sent to him which considered such issues as a consistent national monitoring system of full school places and a means of calculating school places.
The third part of the paper proposed a rationalisation procedure that involved a public inquiry on all proposals to rationalise school places. The inquiry will be chaired by an independent person and a report submitted to the Secretary of State for determination. It will be very similar to planning inquiries. By having that public procedure, it is hoped to remove some of the secretiveness which apparently surrounds the manner in which decisions about school rationalisation proposals are determined by the Secretary of State. A part of the proposal was that, while that inquiry process was under way, there would be a moratorium on applications for grant-maintained status.
The amendment attempts to introduce a public-inquiry procedure for school rationalisation proposals. However, in view of the reported outcome of the meeting with Mr. Forth at the beginning of May, I am content at this stage to regard the amendment as a probing one. However, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister how she sees the situation and, indeed, how a moratorium, if it is to be introduced, might be applied.
Finally, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 254C. It is consequential to amendments to Clauses 219 and 220 to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to influence the approach to a reorganisation. Nevertheless, it would stand on its own even if this Chamber did not, by some strange event, amend Clauses 219 and 220. It would then allow for the possibility of independent review of the Secretary of State's original order.
For all the reasons that I have put forward on Clauses 219 and 220, the Secretary of State should be prevented from attaching conditions limiting the discretion of funding authorities in bringing forward proposals for rationalisation. Clause 222 provides for a public inquiry to be held when the Secretary of State has brought forward his own proposals, after a funding authority has defaulted on a direction to bring forward proposals.
If a Secretary of State was to attempt to influence inappropriately the way that a rationalisation plan

1031
was developed, or to limit the scope of the proposals brought forward, that could well be a material factor in the funding authority's failure to comply with the direction. In such circumstances, it would be most important for the public inquiry to be able to investigate the validity of any claim on the part of the funding authority that the Secretary of State's direction was unreasonable.
Therefore, subsection (6) could vitiate the declared purpose of the clause to provide some independent review in circumstances where the Secretary of State brings forward his own proposal. Once again it should be noted that Clause 223 allows the Secretary of State effectively to ignore the outcome of the inquiry if he so chooses. The public inquiry should surely at the very least be able to comment on the content of the direction, even if its report is ultimately, as is all too characteristic, ignored.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in raising the issue of transport in this context. Almost always rationalisation of schools leads to higher transport costs. Will the additional costs of transport be taken into account in calculating the economic factors in favour of the rationalisation and, more importantly, does a commitment to transport children at the public cost last in perpetuity? At the moment there is some evidence, which I believe we shall consider on Report, which shows that undertakings to transport children as a result of school closures or rationalisations are subsequently being reneged upon by local authorities.
Baroness Blatch: This is a complicated grouping of amendments. I hope I have managed to keep track of the amendments that have been decoupled and regrouped. Before I come to the amendments in detail I would like just to set the scene by explaining why we are introducing these new powers for the Secretary of State to direct the LEAs, FAS or governors of voluntary schools to bring forward proposals to remove surplus places.
I believe there has been some misunderstanding about Clause 219. The provisions of Clause 219 and the Secretary of State's powers are triggered only where local authorities and/or the funding agencies have not fulfilled their obligations in addressing this whole issue of surplus places. Some Members of the Committee may question why we should interfere at all in the process of the rationalisation of school places. They may ask: why not leave it to the LEAs and schools themselves? The answer is simple. Whereas some LEAs have tackled the need for the rationalisation of school places efficiently, there is considerable evidence that others have failed to do so. This was despite the incentives and encouragement that they were given, not least by the high priority that we set on the allocation of capital resources for cost-effective surplus place removal projects; the national targets for the removal of surplus places that were discussed with the local authority associations and the obvious benefits that would be gained by a more streamlined school system.
1032
Our national survey carried out in 1991 showed that in 1991 the capacity of our school building stock in England provided for up to 1.5 million more places than there were pupils, approximately 800,000 of these being in the primary sector and 700,000 in the secondary sector. We recognise that it is not possible to have a system where pupil numbers match exactly the capacity of the school buildings, but it is clear that with this level of surplus there is plenty of scope for the removal of further places from the school system and the achievement of substantial savings, especially in premises related costs. We all know that any money that is freed could be used to better effect in the rest of the educational service.
I must stress that the new powers in the Bill are there not to remove local initiative. We very much hope that LEAs, the funding authority and voluntary bodies, where appropriate, will take the initiative themselves but the Bill enables the Secretary of State to act where, despite all the other incentives, no sensible action has been taken. Even then the Secretary of State's first power is simply to direct the LEA or the funding authority to bring forward proposals for the removal of surplus places.
If the LEA or funding authority fails to bring forward satisfactory proposals, it is true that the Secretary of State can choose to publish his own proposals, but if he does so and these attract objections they have to be referred to a full public inquiry along with any proposals that have been submitted by the LEA or the governors of the schools involved. To ensure that this process is as quick and effective as possible, schools proposed for closure by their LEAs will not be able to propose that they acquire grant-maintained status until the closure proposals have been decided.
I should now like to turn to the particular amendments that have been spoken to. I turn first to Amendments Nos. 249B, 249C and 251A. These change a number of references to school to primary or secondary school as the case may be. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this really is not necessary. Clearly where there are excess places in the secondary sector the Secretary of State's direction will by definition require proposals that will remove that excess. The excess will have arisen either in the primary sector or in the secondary sector. It would be extremely unlikely for such proposals to relate to primary schools where the excess was in the secondary sector or vice versa. I hope the noble Baroness will feel reassured by that explanation.
I now wish to turn to Amendments Nos. 254, 254ZA, 254D and 320A. I believe Amendment No. 320A has not yet been spoken to but it relates to the proposals we are discussing. However, I shall understand if the noble Baroness wishes to press that amendment when we reach the relevant part of the Bill.
My right honourable friend will be forced to issue a direction only where an LEA or the funding authority have not themselves taken action to remove surplus places. Before deciding whether a direction is needed he will have regard to information provided by the LEA or funding authority on the number of places

1033
in their schools and the number of places likely to be required in future years in line with demographic trends. As I have said in earlier debates, this matter must take the form of an annual return to the department. My right honourable friend will, I am sure, also have regard to any efforts they have already made to remove surplus provision and to any other representations they may care to make. But then it will be for him to decide, in the light of the available evidence, whether there is excess provision which should be removed and hence whether a direction should be issued.
Even when a direction had been given, an LEA or the funding authority could submit evidence to the Secretary of State that it was not in the best interests of the provision of education in that area for them to comply with the direction. If the Secretary of State were persuaded by these arguments, it would be open to him using the powers in Section 111 of the Education Act 1944 to withdraw the direction.
These amendments would in effect not require an LEA or the funding authority to comply with my right honourable friend's direction to remove surplus places if the response of the local community to the consultation undertaken prior to bringing forward formal proposals was unfavourable. This takes us no further forward. It will enable LEAs who are not willing to take unpopular decisions to continue to take no action to remove surplus places and to continue to waste resources on empty buildings. In view of this and the assurances that I have given that my right honourable friend will issue a direction to remove surplus places only after full and careful consideration of all the circumstances, I urge the Committee to reject these amendments.
I know that my noble friend Lady Faithful] is concerned about these matters. However, I cannot think of a single school—certainly not one I have ever been involved with—where there is not some opposition to a proposal that it should be closed. I have always been interested to note that the under-performing, least populated and hitherto unpopular schools suddenly become the most popular schools in an area if they become subject to a closure proposal. That is a fact of life. We want to make objective and sensible decisions about what action it is appropriate to take with regard to surplus places.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 253A, 254ZC and 254C which deal with proposals to remove the references to the Secretary of State being required to state the principles to be followed and replace this with a requirement to provide information about the basis for his judgment that there is an excess or shortage of accommodation, as the case may be. Amendment No. 254C removes the restriction placed on the FAS to question these principles.
When making an order under Clause 219 the Secretary of State will clearly have to state the level of the excess provision or shortage of accommodation that he considers needs to be dealt with by the proposals. He may well specify the particular evidence upon which this has been based. The LEA and funding authority should themselves already know the
1034
level of provision. We therefore do not see it as necessary to put these further requirements on the face of the legislation. This is the kind of evidence that would be put before a public inquiry.
Further, the fact that the Secretary of State may specify the principles to be followed will help him to ensure that the proposals that come forward are cost-effective and in the best interests of pupils in the area. An example of the type of principle that the Secretary of State might wish to set would be that in bringing forward proposals the LEA should have regard to the desirability of protecting and, where possible, enhancing schools of particular popularity with parents. While I do not feel as strongly wedded to the need for the Secretary of State to be able to set down the principles to be followed where there is a shortage of provision, it may still be a helpful discipline in ensuring that those involved and any subsequent public inquiry understand what is to be achieved.
The principles that we have in mind will have to comply with ordinary law principles. That means that the direction and the principles would have to be within the purposes of the provisions of the Act in reasonably leading to the removal of surplus places. Further, the principles could not be ones that the authority could not itself put forward in fulfilment of its statutory duties.
It would clearly not be sensible for the public inquiry to be able to overturn those principles. If it could do so it could encourage those putting forward the proposals to ignore the principles set by the Secretary of State.
This is a vexed issue, and I hope that the explanation I have given goes some way towards allaying noble Lords' fears.
Amendment No. 254ZD is a rather more substantial proposal. It would require all statutory proposals that attracted objections (not just those resulting from a direction by the Secretary of State) that had not been withdrawn in writing to be referred to a local public inquiry. That would include any small change of character proposal by a voluntary school or a GM school as well as major reorganisation proposals.
Even if the optimistic assumption of six or nine months for the consideration of the public inquiry proved to be practicable, this procedure would significantly lengthen the time that it would take for a reorganisation to be brought forward and approved by the Secretary of State. Whereas such a delay may well be justified in relation to very difficult or contentious proposals such as those currently dealt with in Clauses 219 to 224 of the Bill, it would certainly not be worth while for the ordinary small-scale reorganisation proposal that attracts a few statutory objections. I say that bearing in mind that, however weak the case, there is usually a small number of people prepared to object to the closure of a school. I have already made that point with feeling. The average time taken from the date of publication to decide statutory proposals brought forward under Sections 12 and 13 that are not determined by the LEA is just over five months. That includes two

1035
months for statutory objections, and, in the case of proposals in respect of county schools, one month for the objections to be passed to the Secretary of State with the LEA's comments.
The current procedure provides plenty of opportunity for local people to express a view. The Secretary of State has made it clear that before proposals are brought forward he expects there to be full local consultation. That was a point made by my friend Lady Faithfull. But where a LEA or a funding agency fulfils its obligations to address the issue of surplus places it of course will carry out the full consultations. In the second stage, where it does not fulfil those obligations and my right honourable friend decides to invoke his powers of direction, he would then direct the funding agency or the LEA. Again, if it responded to that direction it too would continue to carry out the consultation.
When my right honourable friend enters the third stage, which is where the local authority has not only not fulfilled its obligation but has refused to do so in response to a direction, it is open to my right honourable friend to bring forward his own proposals. If he did that, of course the full public inquiry, with all the local input that would flow from that, would be allowed for.
When reaching a decision on proposals, the Secretary of State will have before him a considerable amount of evidence: a full statement of the case by those bringing forward the proposals, statutory objections and any other letters of concern that have been submitted and any letters of support, as well as comments from OFSTED (the inspectorate). He would also be able to take into account any existing reports on the schools in question or any published examination results. In addition Ministers frequently receive deputations from MPs and those wishing to object to proposals. I have met parents who understand the objectives that LEAs are trying to address. They have sensible alternative constructive proposals, and the Bill allows for those proposals to have at least an airing and a chance of getting through the system.
I am aware of the concern of the local authority associations to find a way of achieving more effective rationalisation proposals. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has pointed out, we have had meetings with them. My colleague in another place recently met the AMA. We are currently in discussion with them about the best way forward, and I fully expect that to result in an improved basis for bringing forward statutory proposals. I am not, however, persuaded that that cannot be achieved within the existing framework set out in the Bill and which is based on a well tried system under Sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980.
The discussions to date have provided encouraging evidence that the associations are prepared to work towards the objectives of a good quality, cost-effective education service that meets the needs and aspirations of children and their parents. The new powers for the Secretary of State to direct the LEA or FAS to bring forward proposals ensures that the impetus for
1036
achieving the sensible rationalisation of places will not be lost, particularly in those, hopefully few, cases where those objectives are not so effectively pursued.
I also perceive that one of the concerns which underlies this amendment is the possibility that a school threatened with closure would seek to escape into the GM sector. I can assure the Committee again that that is not our policy, and that provided a local education authority brings forward a sensible scheme to rationalise surplus provision we shall not scupper that by approving for GM status schools proposed for closure.
I understand the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on that point, but where we know that a rationalisation is genuinely in the offing, I have held up consideration of an application for grant-maintained status on the grounds that we know that that is so. I have been persuaded by my officials that it is a good thing to leave the application on the table until we have the proposals before us. However, we cannot automatically go down that road because all the LEA would have to do would be to say, "We have a proposal in the offing", without there being any real signs that it means business. But where it does and we know that the LEA is actively considering the matter, we respond, I hope positively, to that concern.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky has moved Amendment No. 250. It provides that the Secretary of State—
6.45 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: No.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend has spoken to the amendment.
Lord Skidelsky: Perhaps I may make a correction. I said that I was not moving Amendment No. 250, which is in the group of amendments being spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but that I would speak to it after this debate was concluded.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me, but I thought he said that he was not speaking to the other amendments in his group but chose to speak to Amendment No. 250. If he did not, I shall leave it to another moment in the day, or night, or morning, as the case may be.
I believe I am correct in saying that I should address Amendment No. 254E. I do not believe anyone will object to that. I understand the suggestion in the amendment to be that the Secretary of State, rather than the LEA, should fund proposals brought forward by the governors of voluntary schools after directions by the Secretary of State, but we believe that it would be simpler for that to be handled by the LEA. We shall of course provide the LEA with cover within its annual capital guidelines to cover that expenditure. My understanding of that proposal is that it is cost neutral. I believe that amendment is tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was worried about the circular that had gone out to local authorities and that there were errors in the first circular. He is right of

1037
course, because what the department had was crude information, and the whole point of sending out to local authorities was to say, "This is the information that we have. We should like you to look at it, correct it for us and send it back to the department". The next stage—I believe that the noble Lord will understand this—is that it is one thing to say, "This is the number of surplus places there are", but it is another for a local authority to have a view about how many of those places can be removed and how many it is practicable to remove. We are now in the second stage of looking at what is practicable out of the 1.5 million places that exist. We are talking to the authorities.
I believe that I have covered the point regarding the moratorium on GM schools in my reply to another amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull raised the question of school transport. There is no wholly straightforward answer. If the alternative provision for children below the age of eight is greater than two miles and for those above the age of eight greater than three miles, the local authority has a statutory obligation to provide transport for those children if it closes a school. However, if the alternative, as it often is, means that the distance is fewer than two miles for children under eight or fewer than three miles for children over eight it falls within the discretionary powers of the local authority to respond.
My own local authority has a good record in recognising that where it closes a school it is reasonable to provide transport to the alternative school for the children. However, it is a discretionary power. It lies with the local authority to make a judgment about whether it provides it. For children in very rural areas, other factors are taken into account too, including the relative safety or otherwise of the journey that children would have to make to the alternative provision. I personally have always operated on the basis that if the alternative provision one makes when closing a school is not at least comparable to or better than the previous provision, one should not go down the road of closing the school. However, that is a personal view about closing schools.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no power generally to withhold parts of the proposals from the public inquiry. That is not the purpose of Clause 225(5). The limited purpose of this section is to separate and proceed to implement sensible and self-standing parts of an LEA's proposal.
I am sorry that that reply was "bitty" but so too is the group of amendments. I hope that those that I have opposed will not be pressed.
Baroness Hamwee: I waited to see whether the noble Lord who had put their names to other amendments in the group wished to speak. In the interest of reaching the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, before dinner rather than at some time tomorrow morning, I shall proceed.
It is a sensitive issue. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was right in defining rationalisation as meaning in most cases "closure". Adding places to a
1038
school, increasing the number of forms of entry—for instance, where demographic changes mean that there are more children of a particular age to be catered for within a group of schools—is an equally sensitive issue because of the anticipated effect of the provision for the children who are already within the school.
The Minister has given many assurances for which we are grateful. I was glad to hear what she said in blunt terms about not scuppering local proposals by allowing a school to take the escape route of GM status if that would prejudice proper consideration of those local proposals.
I thank her too for the assurances she has given about consideration of primary and secondary provisions. I wished to have them on the record.
On Amendment No. 254ZA, the Minister has told us to what the Secretary of State will have regard in giving directions. She has referred to Section 111 of the 1944 Act. It might be better if the various provisions were in the same place in the same Bill. Even if they cannot be written on one side of a piece of A4 paper, it is a little difficult to have them jotted around. It might be a matter of comfort for the Secretary of State to have safeguards on the face of the Bill which would not lay him open to an accusation that he has not considered everything.
Having heard what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 249B.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 249C not moved.]
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 130, line 28, at end insert:
("and
(c) where a new grant-maintained school has been proposed and approved under sections 45 or 46 and 48, he may by order direct that surplus school premises be transferred under suitable arrangements for the use of the grant-maintained school.").
The noble Lord said: It was my misfortune to move my last group of amendments as the clock was about to strike midnight; and we are now about to go to dinner. Nevertheless, I wish to move Amendment No. 250 and, with the Committee's agreement, to speak to Amendments Nos. 251 and 253.
The purpose of the amendment is not quite the same as that of the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or the noble Lord, Lord Judd. As I understand it, the purpose of their amendments is to make the management of supply less flexible whereas the purpose of this amendment is to make it more flexible.
The group of amendments seeks to address the problem that, as I understand it, no outside entry into grant-maintained status will be allowed, unless there is a basic need, defined as the absence of surplus places in the area concerned. That was stated emphatically by the Secretary of State in another place. I understand the Treasury view in the matter, that to fund extra places when there is already surplus capacity does not make sense. However, there is another principle involved which is important: that the supply of places should have regard to parental wishes. It is a problem of balancing the two considerations of demand and supply.
Clause 219 gives the Secretary of State power to close down surplus places. The intention of Amendment No. 250 is that he should exercise that power in such a way as to allow unmet demand for particular types of education to be met by closing down places for which the demand is deficient. Thus, for example, if there is an empty local education authority school in Hackney, and there is an application for grant-maintained status from a vastly over-subscribed Jewish school in that area, the Secretary of State would have the power under the amendment to direct that the empty school be transferred to the use of the new grant-maintained school.
It may be that the new school divides into two, or that the local authority will receive the value of the site of the old school in compensation. But the new subsection provides for such common-sense arrangements to be possible.
The machinery of Amendments Nos. 251 and 253 is more radical although their objective is exactly the same. Their purpose is to loosen the grip of the Department for Education or LEAs on the management of supply by arranging variations in funding according to a reasonable formula. They would give schools financial incentives to expand and they would also face a failing school with financial penalties.
An important feature of the amendments is that they will allow the Government to retrieve some of the capital grant which will normally be required to attract new sponsors. The amendments provide for clawback from existing schools of capital advanced to new promoters.
That is all I wish to say on the details of the amendments. Perhaps I may re-state the principle once more in broad terms. We seek to insert an element of parental demand into the management of supply. That is the principle of the amendments. Unless demand and supply are brought into a relationship, there will be no new entrants into the system. Therefore one of the objectives of the Bill will be defeated.
I fail to see that the Bill addresses the problem of demand. It provides a purely administrative framework for managing supply. A greater role for the internal market in the provision of school places would make some of us very happy. I hope that the Minister will see her way to accepting that idea.
Lord Kilmarnock: I support the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on an amendment which he has explained with his usual admirable clarity.
On Amendment No. 250, I wish to bring forward a minor technical addition with regard to suitable arrangements for the transfer of the school. Although not specified in the amendment, might it not be a good idea to use the Education Assets Board which already exists? As most of us know, the board has responsibilities for assisting the transfer of local authority schools and higher education institutions. It has a rather successful record and it makes every endeavour to secure completion by agreement with the
1040
local authority transferor. To date, it has only been necessary to refer one issue to the Secretary of State for determination.
The amendment is a little mechanical suggestion as to how Amendment No. 250 may be put into operation. The point is that the amendment would not, I suggest, require the setting up of any complicated new machinery. That machinery already exists.
As regards the other two amendments, Amendments Nos. 251 and 253, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, they are slightly more radical. As he told us, the intention is also to make it possible for the Secretary of State to give serious consideration to applications for new schools, while going some way towards meeting anxiety over surplus places. As I said on Second Reading and once or twice during the passage of the Bill, choice and diversity require some slack in the system, as it would be impossible for parents to exercise choice if every school were full to capacity.
An earlier amendment, Amendment No. 152, proposed in general terms that the Secretary of State should use his powers under Section 219 to take out excess places as a quid pro quo for easing the entry of new schools. The amendment provides a more specific mechanism, which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has explained.
I emphasise that Amendment No. 251 relates to LEA-maintained schools, and Amendment No. 253 applies exactly the same mechanism to grant-maintained schools. So there is no favouring of one sector over another, there is a level playing field. Poorly performing grant-maintained schools would attract exactly the same penalties as LEA-maintained schools.
A short word on the general principle: some people may argue that the state should not be in the business of cutting budgets to state schools to pay profits to private promoters. However, profit is not essentially different from interest in education expenditure, for every pound of capital which the private sector provides is a pound which the state does not have to provide. That is an extremely important point, where the state is already much over-borrowed and there is a consequent squeeze on public expenditure which is likely to last for many years to come. Private sector capital saves the state the interest it would otherwise have to pay on its borrowings through the issue of gilts and the increase of servicing charges on the national debt.
If the notion of profit still offends some sensibilities, it is worth stressing that there is no real distinction between profit-seeking delivery of public services and rent-seeking public officials doing the same thing at a cost to the PSBR, as I have just indicated. By different routes, they each receive the rewards of their efforts and labour.
However, it is worth pointing out also that the amendments would additionally ease the path of voluntary bodies such as denominational or secular educational trusts which do not seek a cash dividend but would use their surpluses for other purposes. There is no reason why a private promoter should not

1041
be allowed to enter the field, and presumably Clause 46 provides for that. But they will not necessarily do so; and, in my view, are not likely to be the biggest players. The main aim which we have been pursuing in the whole series of amendments is to ease the process of bringing new schools into the state system and to encourage the plurality and choice which the Government say they desire. I support the amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Cox: I speak briefly especially in favour of Amendment No. 250, which bears my name. I feel strongly about it because it addresses the surplus places argument which has been used up to now to inhibit the development and funding of new schools. That is an entirely unacceptable argument because many of the surplus places in the local authority schools are not only a result of the demographic trends which have caused the 1.5 million empty places, about which we have already heard, but also many of them have been caused by parents who have voted with their children's feet. They have gone to those schools which are now trying to opt into grant-maintained status. Those are new schools which manifestly meet parents' wishes. They have been set up at great cost and sacrifice, they have been denied funding up to now and their continuation may well be jeopardised as a result of that. I know that many of them are likely to go under soon unless they can obtain funding. They are falling over the trip-wire of the surplus places argument, precisely because they have created the surplus places inadvertently because they are meeting parental wishes.
I realise of course that there is the question of duplicating places, the Treasury question which has up to now been a stumbling block. But the neatness of Amendment No. 250 is that it allows the transfer of surplus places from schools not chosen by parents into the new schools, which are popular with parents who are not well off, at which they currently have to pay, and schools whose survival may be jeopardised unless they can receive funding. So I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the principle of transfer of surplus places to the popular new schools.
Lord Peston: I have been interested for a great many years in the dynamics of school expansion and contraction, but I say to those noble Lords and the noble Baroness who proposed the amendments that I find them bewildering. Apart from the misuse of language, at least in terms of how it is used in the various pieces of educational legislation which we have before us, it seems to me not to show the slightest understanding of what actually happens.
To start with, I should have thought that after last week's electoral debacle for the Government the fewer examples we get of "he may by order direct", the better off we will be, or at least the better off the Government would be, if they were to refrain from making too many orders.
I take it that we are largely discussing grant-maintained schools. In other words, we are not
1042
discussing other schools, private sector schools. The important point is the use of the expression in Amendment No. 250 of "surplus school premises". Surplus school premises consist of a building, a premise. That is quite different from the expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky of "surplus places" which are not the same as surplus school premises. We may have quite a lot of surplus school places; but given the indivisibility of a building, there are no premises surplus at all. So the amendment is simply wrong to start with, it makes no sense. It does not address the problem.
Secondly, unless I misunderstand it, "suitable arrangements" is not a term known in the education legislation before us. What does "suitable arrangements" mean? Does it mean that if the LEA has a school building which it does not want or need, it can sell it to a grant-maintained school? Is that what it means? If it means that it can sell it, where will the grant-maintained school obtain the money? If it does not sell it, perhaps I may remind the Committee that the school premises belong to the local education authority. It seems to me that it is a problem which we have had before, and it is not exactly right in my mind, nor in most noble Lords' minds, that the Secretary of State should simply be able to take away the property that belongs to local council tax payers and give it to grant-maintained schools.
The next point I have to raise from my understanding of what happens in education is that I do not know the expression "normal per capita maintenance grant". Maybe the noble Baroness will tell me that there is something called "normal per capita maintenance grant", but so far as I know there is no such thing. I should like elucidation on that.
Following something which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, clarified for me, I take it that the proposal is meant to be symmetric, that the Government would act in the case of an under-subscribed grant-maintained school, the Government would see to it that its financing was reduced so that the school would be bankrupted if it were under-subscribed. I believe that is what he said when he said there was no bias in the amendments for or against LEA schools as against GM schools. I must say that it seems a strange view for those who support GM schools—and I certainly do not—that at this early stage in their lives we should be introducing "reforms" which might place their whole existence in peril.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Lord referred to me and it is perfectly true that the technical effect of the two amendments is to apply exactly the same mechanism to local authority-maintained schools as to grant-maintained schools. I made what I thought was a fair point that there was a level playing field there.
One other point, the noble Lord talked about the ownership of property and premises, and he criticised the phrase "suitable arrangements". It is a little loose, but there is no reason why "suitable arrangements" should not include suitable payment to the local authority for the premises concerned.
Lord Peston: I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. My own view is that if one puts forward an amendment of this sort, which means that the property of local authorities is confiscated, one might at least spell out what "suitable arrangments" means. I take it that the amendments are put down as serious amendments. I at least treat them seriously.
There is one last point on the dynamics of this matter which interests me. Let us assume for the sake of argument that in a particular area the grant-maintained school is over-subscribed and the LEA schools have some surplus places. Let us forget for the moment the problem of premises. If the grant-maintained school then expands, the local education authority schools will be even more under-subscribed. One has a dynamic system which essentially undermines totally the local education authority school. I take it that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, wants. He wants to damage the under-subscribed schools in order to enhance the ones that are over-subscribed.
Lord Skidelsky: I would like to undermine the financial viability of schools to which parents do not want to send their children.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord indicates that he does not know anything about what happens. A school that is, say, two-thirds subscribed contains a large number of parents who are very happy with that school. The fact that it is under-subscribed does not mean that there is something wrong with that school so far as those two-thirds of parents are concerned. That is why this kind of market model simply will not work. It is not the same as buying ordinary things. That is, I am afraid, what some protagonists of these models do not understand about the way education works. When one takes resources away from a school, one damages the school for the parents who are happy with it. That is why this is a mistake.
I understand that those who are committed to GM schools are trying desperately to make the process work. My own view is that, given the results of the local authority elections last week, the matter is over and done with for the time being. I do not blame them for that. I worry, however, if they make any kind of intervention which is damaging to the education of the large number of children in schools over-subscribed, under-subscribed or equal-subscribed. This is a different kind of world from the ordinary market world. That is why in the large part we do not allow the market mechanism to dominate education.
Baroness Cox: I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. But there is also a question of scale, size and rationality. Does the noble Lord accept that a comprehensive school kept open in one particular local authority with just 11 pupils per intake per year is a viable proposition; that to keep open a comprehensive meant to be a 10-form intake with 11 pupils is a reasonable way of behaving?
Lord Peston: Of course not. I was not able to speak in the previous amendments on rationalisation. I am a strong believer in rationalisation, not just on grounds of saving money, but also because certain schools are
1044
too small to do the job. Nothing I say is meant to be against rationalisation. Indeed, I support anything that the Government do to prod authorities which are reluctant to rationalise into doing so. I am concerned about not allowing interventions that damage certain schools which are under-subscribed but are not doing as well as certain other schools. That is the nature of the problem. Therefore I believe that these amendments not only fail as amendments—I believe that they are technically unsound, but that is not the point at issue—but are extremely unhelpful in terms of any educational advance.
Lord Skidelsky: Perhaps I may intervene once more. As I understand it, the noble Lord is in favour of rationalisation by administrative fiat, by the fiat of the local education authority, irrespective of the wishes of the parents for whom he showed so much solicitude a moment ago. Local authorities have rationalised places by administrative fiat. What he is absolutely against is that any element whatever of parental choice should enter into that process.
Lord Peston: I am afraid that I really will not accept that. I argued for parental choice before the noble Lord had any interest whatever in education. I have been a long-time supporter of parental choice. I ask him to believe that there is rather more to parental choice than he seems to understand. I appreciate that there are some parents who would like their children to go to a particular school and not to another school. The noble Lord must understand that lots of parents want their children to go to the under-subscribed school, and their choices have to be taken into account.
I would go further. I do not believe that it is just a matter of parental choice. I believe that the pupils themselves count in this decision, which people often forget. Therefore, I do not buy parental choice to quite the extent that the noble Lord does. I think that sometimes parents might ask what their children want. That is by the way. The point is that it is not an issue of parental choice. I take the point that one has to manage the resources, but I do not see that, when a particular industry or a particular firm manages its different plants and rationalises them, that is regarded as somehow incompatible with choosing the final product. The local education authority, it seems to me, is perfectly reasonably—I shall sit down in a moment—able to rationalise the use of its places. That is simply not incompatible with parental choice. Quite the contrary. In many cases it corresponds to parental choice. Indeed, the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, would correspond to parental choice if that particular school were rationalised and other schools were made more viable.
Baroness Blatch: I cannot resist the temptation to come back to the noble Lord on his professing to have been interested in parental choice long before it was fashionable. I look forward to his support for grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, bi-lateral schools, technology

1045
schools and for other specialist schools. That is what choice is about, but the noble Lord is opposed to all of them.
Lord Peston: Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. As always, we seem to have these arguments at just the wrong time when we are considering other matters. That is not what parental choice is about. That is precisely the point. That is where we disagree. There were large numbers of parents who did not want the grammar schools to survive.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness of the early history of comprehensives. The early comprehensives were introduced by Conservative local authorities, not by Labour local authorities. They were introduced often for rationalisation reasons. They were introduced because parents did not get choice. Some did—their children got to grammar schools—and the overwhelming majority got no choice at all. So the noble Baroness cannot get away with the notion that only her particular choices are parental choices. They are not. There is a broader dimension to this question.
Baroness Blatch: I take it from that that choice is all right so long as it is comprehensive. It adds up to nothing else. If there is opposition to grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, grammar schools, bi-lateral schools, schools that specialise and schools that are technology schools, then I have to deduce that the noble Lord is in favour of choice so long as it is comprehensive. That is an aside, but the noble Lord tempted me by making that remark.
I understand that my noble friend feels very concerned about the issue of newly established grant-maintained schools and how one can allow that policy to be more consistent with parental preference.
Amendment No. 250 proposes that when making an order under Clause 219 the Secretary of State may direct that surplus school premises shall be transferred under suitable arrangements to a new grant-maintained school approved under Clauses 45, 46 and 48.
As we discussed during our earlier debate on Clause 46, that proposal cuts across the criteria for the establishment of a new grant-maintained school which includes the need to ensure that there are not surplus places in the local education authority or grant-maintained sectors. If those conditions are satisfied, and there are redundant LEA school premises that have already been taken out of school use, it would of course be open to the promoters of a new grant-maintained school to seek to purchase those for the use of the new grant-maintained school. The Secretary of State could pay grant of up to 85 per cent. on such a purchase. A change such as is proposed by this amendment would cause difficulties and indeed tensions in relation to the duties of local authorities in relation to the use of assets, and in any case could not include the property of voluntary schools.
I know that my noble friend disagrees with the Government's view that surplus places criteria should
1046
be an impediment to the establishment of a new grant-maintained school. Amendment No. 251 proposes an additional per capita payment for each pupil in excess of the standard number. As the Committee will be aware, the local management of schools formulae for funding schools are already firmly based on the number of pupils at the school and therefore directly benefit those that are successful in attracting additional pupils. Therefore a school that has pupils above the standard number will indeed receive the money for them. Local education authorities must allocate at least 80 per cent. of the money going to schools on the basis of pupil numbers. I hope that my noble friend will agree that Amendment No. 251 is unnecessary.
I do not consider it appropriate to give popular schools double funding for attracting additional pupils. It would be an unfettered market principle to give a school that is losing pupils an additional amount. I believe that that would send too many schools too quickly to the wall. However, I understand the points that my noble friend made.
Amendment No. 253 removes the restriction placed on the Secretary of State by Clause 219(4) not to name a particular school and removes the provision of subsection (3), which requires the Secretary of State to give the date by which a direction shall be carried out and the principles to be followed in fulfilling that requirement. It replaces those with a requirement that, before making an order under Clause 219(2), the Secretary of State shall consider whether the interests of the area will not be better served by directing the funding authority to follow the procedures set out in subsection (1) (c).
I assume that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred to the proposals under Amendment No. 250, which provides that the Secretary of State may direct that surplus school premises should be transferred under suitable arrangements for the use of a new grant-maintained school. As I have already explained, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to seek to achieve the redistribution of premises in that way.
I know that my noble friend is meeting with officials in the department to discuss these and other amendments which were pressed at an earlier stage and are of concern to him. In the light of what I have said, and where we agree to disagree about matters, I hope that he will continue to explore the issues with my officials in the department and will not press the amendments tonight.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to ask for some clarification. I find it very difficult to see under what circumstances it will be possible to start a new grant-maintained school under Clause 46 unless one is building a new town or a new housing estate or, as indeed in Tower Hamlets, the school population happens to be growing so fast that there is a need for a completely new school provision. That must occur very rarely under normal circumstances.
Baroness Blatch: It is always conceivable that a new school would be needed if, for example, instead of

1047
having surplus places in an area there was a tension for places in the area. Instead of always looking towards local education authorities to provide, the funding agency could look to promoters to fill that gap. That would certainly be one way into the system. However, I admit openly that it is a tension.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I are to some extent saying that there is the world that operates now and it is very difficult to use the process of replacing almost at a stroke one school with another. I also believe that there is considerable scope in this Bill for doing more to remove unpopular schools. In any rationalisation programme I hope that local authorities would look very carefully at where parents are voting with their feet and would respond positively by taking up those schools which are not patronised by parents, doing what they can to promote, enhance and seek the survival of schools that are popular.
I omitted to answer a question from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about per capita maintenance grant. There is such a thing as per capita maintenance grant for grant-maintained schools. It is called annual maintenance grant and is allocated on a per capita basis.
Lord Peston: Is that to say that there is no term of art normal per capita maintenance grant? It has a different name from that. Is that right?
Baroness Blatch: It is the annual maintenance grant but it is a lump sum plus a per capita amount. So it is a per capita allocation.
Lord Skidelsky: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I hope that I have a chance over an excellent dinner to expose the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He made some very dubious statements with a great deal of dogmatism. We do not want to detain the Committee by arguing now. In view of the Minister's reply I am happy to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 251 and 251A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 252 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 253 and 253A not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 254:
Page 130, line 41, at end insert:
("(3A) An order under subsection (1) (a) or (2) above shall not have the effect of requiring any proposals to be published where the local education authority or, as the case may be, the funding authority are of the opinion that this would be inconsistent with their having conscientiously taken into account the responses to consultation undertaken by them in contemplation of making such proposals.
(3B) Where the local education authority or, as the case may be, the funding authority are of the opinion mentioned in subsection (3A) above they shall give notice of that opinion to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 254ZA and 254ZB not moved.]
Clause 219 agreed to.
Clause 220 [Directions to bring forward proposals for additional provision in maintained schools]:
[Amendment No. 254ZC not moved.]
Clause 220 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 254ZD not moved.]
Clause 221 [Publication of proposals by the Secretary of State]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 254A
Page 132, line 24, at end insert ("for the area").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has been spoken to with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
Clause 221, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 222 [Public inquiry into proposals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 254B:
Page 133, line 18, at end insert ("in exercise of their powers to make proposals for the alteration of their school").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was also spoken to with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
[Amendment Nos. 254C and 254D not moved.]
Clause 222, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 223 agreed to.
Clause 224 [Supplementary provisions]:
[Amendment No. 254E not moved.]
Clause 224 agreed to.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill begin again at half-past eight.
House resumed.

Maximum Number of Judges (No. 2) Order 1993
7.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the order is made under Section 4(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and amends Section 4(1) (e) of that Act so as further to increase the maximum number of High Court judges. If approved, it will come into force on 13th May 1993.
I should explain that the Supreme Court Act 1981 sets at 80 the maximum number of High Court judges. That number was increased to 85 by the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1987. The order now proposed would increase that maximum number to 98. The number of High Court judges increased from 77 in April 1988, shortly after I took office, to 85 in May 1992, though the number of holding appointments has fluctuated around that number since then because of promotions and retirements.
In considering the justification for a further increase in the number of High Court judges, I hope it may be helpful to set the matter in the context of the

1049
demands on all the jurisdictions in which High Court judges sit and in particular to the advice of the group of senior judges and officials chaired by Lord Justice Kennedy and constituted to advise myself and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice on the work, deployment and numbers of High Court judges.
As there was a degree of difference in the waiting times and the backlogs in those jurisdictions, and there were a number of areas causing concern, my noble and learned friend and I decided last summer that a group of senior judges and officials be constituted and tasked to provide urgent advice on the work, deployment and numbers of High Court judges. I should emphasise that that was a major, complex task and that there was no ready or serviceable means of otherwise identifying the required number of additional judges.
After defining the issues to be addressed and the information required during the summer break to take forward the review, the group's first meeting took place on 5th October 1992 and Lord Justice Kennedy commissioned material from members of the group and from other members of the judiciary having responsibility for or knowledge of specialist High Court jurisdictions. The group met frequently before Christmas to consider the evidence it was gathering and again during January 1993 to finalise its report. The report was presented to the Lord Chief Justice and myself on 10th February and our intention to appoint the additional judges was announced, first, in another place on 5th March.
The report of the group is available in the Libraries of both Houses so I shall not dwell in detail on its content. However, in summary, the group considered the main strands of High Court judges' work and saw the immediate purpose of its review to address means of relieving the pressure affecting the justice system. Having concluded early on that there was a continuing need for the High Court Bench to provide a pool of more able judges to try the more serious cases both in London and on circuit, the group examined each strand and considered whether the criteria for identifying work suitable for High Court judges could be improved, procedural or jurisdictional improvements that might be made and also flexible methods of deployment for them to undertake that work.
From an examination of the strands it was concluded that additional judge power was required to reduce delays and backlogs of cases in the Chancery Division, the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, the Crown Office List and the Employment Appeal Tribunal and to maintain the appropriate judicial strength of the Commercial Court.
The group identified a need for between 10 and 13 additional judges to be appointed. Appendix 21 of the report recommended further inquiry and that the work which should be heard by High Court judges should be kept under review, having regard to the need to maintain the High Court Bench as a compact collegiate body. Assistance for deployment to meet agreed priorities should be kept under review to ensure that, so far as possible, High Court judges are reserved for hearing only the most serious, complex or
1050
sensitive cases, and consideration should be given to the information system needed to support those aims and to determine the number of High Court judges needed at any one time.
My noble and learned friend and I agreed that the further work based on that appendix should be put in hand. At its most basic the further work is aimed at ensuring that demands for further judge power are based on appropriate levels of productivity and increases in workload and will be subject to a thorough investigation to be completed as a matter of priority. For the meantime, my noble and learned friend and I agreed that 10 new appointments are sufficient to relieve current pressure on the High Court Bench. After the 10 additional appointments have been made, no more judges will be appointed until the further work is completed. However, there will be headroom for a further three appointments so that if additional appointments are needed swift action will be possible without recourse to Parliament and the Privy Council.
This order was approved in another place on 4th May and, subject to your Lordships' approval tonight, the additional appointments will be made as soon as practicable. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, we welcome the regulations from these Benches. They give us particular satisfaction because on 22nd October last I asked in an Unstarred Question what action the Government would take to ensure that there were sufficient High Court judges to transact the business of that court. I hope that the resultant debate strengthened the hand of the noble and learned Lord in a battle which I do not doubt must have taken place with the Treasury for the allocation of scarce resources. In this case the corner that the noble and learned Lord had to fight was for prompt access to justice. I hope that the uniform opinion of those contributing to that debate—that a major cause of much of the delay in the administration of justice in the High Court was too few judges—strengthened him in making the case for the 13 additional judges that the regulations sanction.
There are many questions which noble Lords will be interested to have answered. As I understand the noble and learned Lord, it is likely that in the immediate future 10 appointments will be made, leaving headroom for three more. What impact is it estimated that the new appointments will have on the use of deputy High Court judges in the High Court? Deputies have recently been used to an unacceptable extent. It has meant that many cases have been tried beneath the levels thought appropriate by Parliament, and, indeed, by the noble and learned Lord himself, and in relation to individual cases beneath the level which the Master or the district judge thought appropriate.
The extensive use of deputies devalued the role of the deputy, which is to afford an opportunity for genuine candidates for the High Court Bench to prove

1051
their worth, not to alleviate delays due to an inadequately staffed full-time Bench by engaging deputies who are not in any realistic sense candidates for permanent appointments. My question therefore is, what impact is thought to be likely on the use of deputies from these new appointments that are in prospect?
Perhaps I may also ask the noble and learned Lord what further thought has been given to whether it would be possible to define with greater precision the criminal and civil cases which either should or should not be tried by High Court judges. For example, could suitably experienced circuit judges try murder and rape cases which do not involve unusual public concern indicating the need for trial by a High Court judge? Is there scope for having nominated circuit judges of great experience in the field of sentencing sit from time to time in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal? Does the noble and learned Lord think that there is scope for the trial of defamation actions in the county court? In short, does the noble and learned Lord have currently under consideration any proposals for re-allocating specific types of business to different levels in the judicial hierarchy on the basis that there should be a continuous assessment of what cases are of such public concern or so serious and complex that they should be the exclusive preserve of the High Court judges?
I ask those questions, but in fairness this is an occasion for welcoming an achievement by the noble and learned Lord. He faces strong criticism from these Benches on a range of issues, not least for what he has allowed to happen to legal aid. But that is another subject for another day. Meanwhile, we from these Benches give credit where it is due and welcome the regulations.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, in the 12 months since I was introduced into this House my interventions have been, I hope the House will agree, mercifully few. But unhappily they have mostly been critical of measures which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was proposing or in regard to measures which he was not proposing. I am glad therefore to be able tonight to support and welcome wholeheartedly the order which he has laid before the House. It has been a long haul, begun by my predecessor and pursued by myself and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to secure the appointment of more judges to cope with the increased workload now carried by the courts.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, he and I jointly set up a committee to study and report to us on the deployment of judges. The report of the committee showed that there was an immediate need for more judges to be appointed. I must express my thanks to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for acting very swiftly on receipt of that report to take the steps necessary to enable this order to be laid. I hope that the 10 additional judges proposed to be appointed in the very short term will be in post by autumn of this year. They will be deployed to meet pressing needs.
First and foremost, the backlog of criminal appeals and applications for judicial review must be reduced.
1052
The Commercial Court needs to be brought up to full judicial strength. There are delays in the Employment Appeal Tribunal which should be reduced and the Chancery Division also has serious arrears. These matters, in my judgment—I know that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack agrees—must take priority over reducing the number of deputies, although I hope that in due course we shall be able to reduce our reliance upon deputies to try cases which should properly be tried by full-time judges. I hope that with the 10 additional judges we shall be able to reduce the arrears and ease the immediate pressures in the various fields I have mentioned. I repeat my gratitude for this very welcome order.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, lest it has not been said previously today, may I express the personal relief and pleasure that I feel that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has safely returned from Northern Cyprus. Turning to this Motion, I add my congratulations to him on having obtained the agreement of colleagues, and of the Treasury in particular, to this long overdue increase in the strength of the High Court Bench. I shall not burden your Lordships with elaborating on those congratulations and would like to add only one word—not perhaps in any critical sense but to put down a marker; namely, in relation to the use of deputy High Court judges.
Even with 10 additional High Court judges it will, I have no doubt, be necessary to continue to use deputies on the present scale if the backlog is to be reduced, but the present scale really is rather staggering. I have been through today's causes. There are 34 High Court judges sitting and 22 deputies, of whom 15 are county court judges. If we are to maintain the distinction between the High Court and the county court—consideration was given to abandoning it and having a national court but that has been rejected as a policy—as the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 clearly intends that it should be maintained, then High Court work must be undertaken by High Court judges save in temporary emergencies when it would be appropriate to bring in deputies.
Perhaps I may utter one minor word of dissent to something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I really do doubt whether it is a proper function of a deputy High Court judge to be on trial as to his abilities to be a full High Court judge. There are other ways of finding out whether he would be suitable in a judicial capacity. The difficulty about it was highlighted, if that is the right word, by the late Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson, who, commenting on the use of divorce commissioners many years ago, described them as High Court judges on sale or return. There is an element of truth in that. It is an invidious position for a deputy High Court judge to be in. It does not arise at present because the numbers are such that that must be the least of the considerations. But I venture to suggest that they should not be used except in cases of emergency, a sudden surge in the work of the court, illness or something of that kind.

1053
Otherwise, as I say, we shall have a national court by a back-door. I again repeat my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I readily join in the rejoicing at this Motion to increase the number of High Court judges significantly in the manner proposed. However, I think I would be doing the House a disservice if I were party to a rejoicing that masked the very serious constitutional concerns that lie behind this long delayed and much overdue order.
In his foreword to a pamphlet on judicial appointments, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, then in his capacity as Lord Chancellor, said that,
"the quality of justice is largely determined by the quality of the judge who presides".
The role played by the High Court judge is, par excellence, absolutely crucial to the quality of the administration of justice. I make the following points. The High Court Bench ensures, by the process of judicial review, that, inter alia, inferior courts and tribunals, local authorities and the Executive branch of the Government comply with the law. The High Court Bench is thus much involved in maintaining the delicate balance achieved over the centuries between the power of the legislature, the Executive and the judicature. I characterise that balance as delicate, since, unlike many other common law jurisdictions, the independence of the judiciary is not protected by way of a written constitution and in those circumstances it cannot be taken for granted.
Secondly, the High Court Bench provides the 12 presiding judges who, each for a period of four years, are responsible to the senior presiding judge, and ultimately to the Lord Chief Justice, for the proper functioning of the six circuits. This was an invention by Lord Beeching in his report. Since his report gave very considerable extra power to the executive—the Lord Chancellor's Department—this was a means of ensuring that bureaucracy did not take over the entire administration of justice.
Thirdly, High Court judges preside over the heavy criminal and civil cases and provide the specialist input for jurisdictions such as the Commercial Court, the Admiralty Court, company and revenue matters, patent, insolvency and the like. Fourthly, they play an important role in the Parole Board, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Judicial Studies Board and the Law Commission.
It was thus astonishing that, at least for the past four years, there has been a plain, incontrovertible and yet unsatisfied need for a substantial increase in the number of High Court judges. This need has been stressed again and again to the Lord Chancellor.
My noble and learned friend Lord Lane, as Lord ChiefJustice, became so frustrated and exasperated by the failure to remedy the situation that nearly two years ago, in a public speech at the banquet given by the Lord Mayor of London to the judges, he spoke of this being "a critical situation" and of the administration of justice being "in peril". He gave facts and figures to support those propositions. Not long later, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on 15th
1054
July 1991, asked a Starred Question on the subject. In the course of the discussion my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton drew attention to this overuse of deputies. I say "overuse" because he drew the House's attention to the power that the Lord Chancellor has under Section 9(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to use deputies. They are to be used under the statute as a temporary measure, and not as a regular and consistent policy, which the Lord Chancellor accepted had been the case long before he became Lord Chancellor and has continued over the years since.
Last July (that is nearly a year ago) very soon after his appointment as Lord Chief Justice, my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor himself publicly, in a speech in the Mansion House—at the self-same Lord Mayor's dinner and only a year later—drew attention to the situation which had not been remedied. A debate, initiated, as has already been pointed out, by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was attended by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. He there drew attention to the intolerable delays in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), in judicial review proceedings and in the Commercial Court. He said in terms that it would become a "national disgrace" if the matter was not remedied very quickly.
As I understand it, it is not going to be remedied for a year following that speech.
In that debate I expressed my perplexity and puzzlement at the situation in these terms:
"My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is the head of the judiciary. He occupies an immensely powerful and very senior position in the Cabinet. Perhaps it is naive of me but I cannot for the world understand why he is not in a position to say to the Treasury. 'I have been told by the current Lord Chief Justice, by the former Lord Chief Justice and by the former Master of the Rolls that the administration of justice is in peril. What is happening at present amounts basically to an abuse of power. I insist on having more judges. You, the Treasury, have no business in any way to frustrate the requirements of the administration of justice'".—[Official Report, 22/10/92; col. 890.]
Following that debate, a wholly unusual event occurred; namely, a delegation to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, led by the Lord Mayor of London—such was the anxiety of the City in regard to the state of the Commercial Court. The judge in charge of the Commercial Court had spoken publicly of how that court was failing in its vital object to give expeditious hearings on matters of considerable moment. I am also instructed that pressure was brought to bear (I know not with what result) on the DTI in order that the situation might be remedied.
I have already expressed my delight that subsequently it has been accepted that the number proposed by the judges in their report has been acceptable. I do not believe that this situation would have arisen 10 years ago or even less, but today the Treasury diktat is almost unstoppable. It must have come as a surprise to many of your Lordships to hear my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, during the debates on the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill, supporting a measure which would have reduced by 90 per cent. the pension which a judge

1055
who became disabled on his first year would enjoy, and, by the same 90 per cent., the pension which his widow would have achieved if he had died that year.
Under considerable pressure, but only on Third Reading, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor modified that position, but only to the extent of providing for the sickness and early death of judges one-half of that which is provided to Members of Parliament under recent arrangements.
I have recently had drawn to my attention a very impressive and somewhat glossy prospectus issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department headed A Programme for the Future. It looks as if it might have cost a judicial salary or two to prepare. It is recorded at the foot of page three:
"As the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor is at all times concerned to safeguard the judiciary's … independence from the other branches of Government".
It is with the greatest regret that I have to say that I very much doubt whether that is the present perception of the judiciary.
I make this intervention because what is being provided for at the moment is only to relieve the current pressure. It pays no regard to three matters which have been raised. One is the increased demand for judges as the result of the increased applications for judicial review which everybody accepted would result from the new asylum Bill. Secondly, there is the increased demand on judges as a result of the alteration of legal aid eligibility which will result in many more cases being undertaken by litigants in person. We were told not long ago that 20 per cent. of the Court of Appeal's work is now currently taken up by litigants acting in person. Finally, there are the consequences of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act and its provisions which provide that no one, having reached 75 years of age after the provision comes into force, can any longer sit as a judge.
Therefore, I foresee that there will be further applications for extra judges. I make this intervention in the earnest hope that history does not repeat itself.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have supported this order in unequivocal terms. The situation of my Office is one which I consider to be important in relation to the preservation of the independence of the judiciary. I do not wish to comment in any detail on what my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner had to say about that, except that I have endeavoured to perform the duties of my Office to the very best of my ability.
On the subject matter of this order, I have had negotiations with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, as he made clear. The result was to set up a committee consisting of judges of the Court of Appeal and of the High Court along with officials from my department, to study this intricate problem and to tell us what the correct number was to which the High Court judicial complement should be raised. That is not a simple question. The size of the report and the nature of the investigations they made in order to reach that demonstrates that very clearly. It is simplistic to suggest that I could have arrived at that by myself without any judicial co-operation. It has not been my habit to go into confidential conversations
1056
between myself and the Heads of Division past or present, but I could, of course, do that to protect myself if I thought it wise. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to enter into these discussions in public to detail what has taken place between us. I have always respected that confidentiality and I believe that it is appropriate that I should do so.
Perhaps I may turn now to the questions that were raised about deputies by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and my noble and learned friends Lord Donaldson of Lymington and Lord Ackner. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred to the statutory provision about the temporary use of a deputy. As I have explained before, that does not apply to the use of circuit judges. It is wrong to lump together circuit judges sitting as judges of the High Court and those who sit under the temporary provisions as deputies. Your Lordships who are very familiar with the statutory provision would, I am sure, wish to observe that distinction.
My next point is that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and my colleagues, the Heads of Division, are all agreed that the highest priority is to reduce the backlogs, and the new appointments will be used primarily for that purpose. Difficult questions remain, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, pointed out, about the precise boundary between those cases which should be tried by High Court judges and those which are appropriate for circuit judges. That is a matter, particularly in the criminal field, that will be examined under the arrangements that I have made with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice for continuing work.
As those of your Lordships who have read Lord Justice Kennedy's report will have seen, there have been discussions about the question of whether experienced circuit judges might not be appropriately invited to sit as part of a team in the Criminal Division in the Court of Appeal. That cannot happen under the present statutory provisions, as the noble Lord is aware, but the question was raised and is for consideration. Many circuit judges have very considerable experience, particularly in sentencing, in areas with which the High Court judges are more familiar only on appeal.
The final question that I was asked on this aspect relates to defamation actions in the county courts. This question arose during consideration of the Courts and Legal Services Bill. I said then—and I remain of this view—that when the procedures for defamation are simplified (as they are in the course of being) a wider use of the county courts for actions of defamation seems perfectly feasible.
Those are the main matters that have been raised. I understand the observation of Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson about "sale or return"—graphic as always. I think that it has been accepted that it is wise for someone who is being contemplated as a possible judge of the High Court to serve as a deputy under the statutory provisions and to assist in dealing with current cases. I believe that that has been found useful.
I understand that I have your Lordships' support for the Motion and propose to—
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can help me with one point. I appreciate the distinction between Silks, practitioners who are brought in as deputies, and county court judges who sit as judges of the High Court. There is a definite distinction. Within the Crown court, they are all judges of the Crown court, so there is obviously a case for deciding which circuit judges can try which county cases. Of course, there are circuit judges who can try murder cases. Within the High Court, is the noble and learned Lord really saying—perhaps he is—that for a county court judge to try a High Court case is a normal and acceptable situation, because that seems to me to destroy at a stroke the difference between the county court and the High Court?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Parliament has provided a quite different regime for circuit judges—not county court judges any more—sitting in the High Court and when they do so, they sit as judges of the High Court. There is no question of "temporary" in the phraseology that provides for it. On the other hand, where deputies are provided for, it is on the understanding that their commission is temporary. It does not necessarily mean, I think, that the use of deputies as a whole is temporary, but it does mean, I think, that each deputy is not on a full-time commission, but is on a temporary commission.
As my noble and learned friend will know, it has been the practice that certain circuit judges are thought to be suitable for sitting from time to time as High Court judges and the allocation of cases to them is made by my colleagues, the senior judiciary, from day to day in the High Court. Those arrangements have been found suitable. I think that it is possible to have a degree of flexibility between the circuit Bench and the High Court Bench at the same time as preserving the distinction of the High Court. As my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson knows full well, special provisions relating to the commercial court distinguish it from the others. A degree of flexibility is required in this matter and I am content that that is exercised wisely from day to day by my colleagues who sit in the Royal Courts of Justice. At the moment, it is usually the Deputy Chief Justice who makes such decisions on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice. The precise nature of the arrangements may vary with the day-to-day arrangements which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice may make.
I think that this is a reasonably satisfactory arrangement which, while maintaining the broad distinction between the two, leaves the control in the hands of those with responsibility for the High Court.

Civil Legal Aid (Scope) Regulations 1993
8.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd April be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the draft Statutory Instrument is designed to extend the legal aid scheme to provide civil legal aid to cover proceedings in magistrates' courts under Sections 20 and 27 of the Child Support Act.
Section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991 provides a right of appeal for a person aggrieved by the decision of a child support officer. In this type of case a child support officer in the employ of the Child Support Agency makes a decision, on the facts available to him, whether an alleged parent is or is not the parent of a child and whether maintenance should be paid by that parent in respect of the child. Appeals against these decisions are most likely to be made either by the actual parent or by the alleged parent and the respondent will be the agency, not the alleged parent. Where the appeal involves a question of parentage it will be heard in a Family Proceedings Court.
Section 27 of the Child Support Act 1991 applies where a child support officer is considering whether to make a maintenance order against a person who denies being a parent to the child. The Secretary of State for Social Security, or the person with care, may then apply to the court for a declaration as to whether or not the person is the child's parent. The respondent in such proceedings would be the alleged parent. It is intended that this type of proceeding would commence in the Family Proceedings Court and, as with Children Act cases, if the complexity of the case requires it, would transfer up to either a county court or the High Court. Proceedings in civil courts would fall within the current scheme, and I propose to extend the scope of the legal aid scheme to provide full civil legal aid to cover proceedings in magistrates' courts for proceedings under Section 20 or 27 of the Child Support Act, subject to the normal means and merits tests.
I have tabled a negative resolution in respect of remuneration for applications made under the Child Support Act. Remuneration in respect of such proceedings will be made at the rates specified in Schedule 2 to the Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) Regulations in the same way as other family work, save for Children Act care proceedings, for which separate rates of remuneration exist. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd April be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord explained, the regulations extend legal aid but only in two narrow situations. The first is where a maintenance assessment order made by a child support officer is challenged because there is a parentage dispute. The second is in proceedings for a declaration of parentage. I understand that the regulations are necessary because of the combined effect of the Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 1993 and the Children (Allocation of Proceedings) (Amendment) Order 1993. They provide that such proceedings shall be determined by a court instead of a child support appeal tribunal and that the court in question, in the first instance, shall be the Magistrates' Court.

1059
We welcome the extension of legal aid to these proceedings. Indeed, such an extension was surely inevitable. It can hardly be suggested that important decisions relating to the identity of a parent of a child should be made without proper representation of the persons affected. Although a declaration under the 1991 Act is valid only for the purposes of the Act itself, it is an important decision which goes beyond mere financial implications. It decisively affects the child/parent relationship and should be approached in an informed and measured way.
However, the impact of the new provisions should not be exaggerated. They do not apply to appeals from a child support officer on other grounds. These are still to be heard by a child support appeal tribunal where no legal aid will be available and where the litigant, usually the mother, will be expected to manage as best she can. That is no mean feat. I have studied Schedule 1 to the Child Support Act, which sets out the way in which child support is to be calculated. Although my own mathematical skills are no more than tolerable and in a lesser league than those of the noble and learned Lord, I challenge anyone without a good degree in the subject to make sense of its provisions. The general rule is:
"(A + C) × P where—A is the absent parent's assessable income; C is the assessable income of the other parent, where that parent is the person with care, and otherwise has such value (if any) as may he prescribed; and P is such number greater than zero but less than 1 as may be prescribed".
As one's eye travels down the page of the Act one encounters even complicated formula such as:
G = MR/(A+C)*P
I hope that I am not being unduly pessimistic by suggesting that these calculations and others appearing in the schedule are unlikely to be undertaken with ease by the average single-parent mother. Yet if she is to challenge the child support officer's figures, she will need to know how he arrived at them and whether the formula was applied correctly. All that is to be done without any benefit of legal aid.
Furthermore, in cases which do not relate to paternity, appeals are dealt with initially by child support appeal tribunals. Further appeals to a child support commissioner and ultimately to the Court of Appeal are available but only on a point of law. At the moment legal aid is not available for proceedings before the tribunals or the commissioner although it is available for proceedings in the Court of Appeal. We urge that legal aid should be extended immediately to hearings before the commissioner since it is unrealistic to expect unrepresented applicants to argue points of law.
We must also remember that parentage proceedings are allocated to the Magistrates' Court. Of course, under the allocation provisions procedure exists, at least in theory, for their upward transfer to the County Court and to the High Court. But the history of the Children Act during the past 18 months has been one of very great reluctance by magistrates to let go of proceedings before them lest they be thought "not up to the job". Perhaps on another day the noble and learned Lord will tell the House the percentage of
1060
successful applications made in that regard. My own impression, albeit gleaned anecdotally from practitioners in the field, is that the percentage is likely to be very low and that, as a result, reductions have to be made to the circuit itineraries of the High Court judges.
Finally, perhaps I may take the opportunity to raise again the deep anxiety felt by many about the basic principles underlying the Child Support Act. While we accept that parents ought to take responsibility for their children, we consider it even more important that children should not be punished for the shortcomings of their parents. That is precisely what Sections 6 and 46 of the 1991 Act bring about. The mother who refuses to give information leading to the identity of the father and does not satisfy the child support agency that that is out of fear of violence may find her own benefit substantially reduced.
And so in practice the sins of the parents are visited upon the children. It is no answer to say that benefit affected by the refusal of the mother to disclose the identity of the father is the mother's benefit and not that of the child. There must be few households in the country where those on benefit carefully keep separate the amount paid for the mother and the amount paid for the child and allocate each accordingly. The reality is that the money all goes into the same pool and if the pool is smaller the children suffer. We on these Benches will carefully monitor the hardships which the Act will undoubtedly bring about and which are only minutely assuaged by the present legal aid regulations. On a suitable occasion we shall seek to bring these matters to the attention of the House.
While I am on the shortcomings of the Child Support Act, perhaps I may take this opportunity to inquire of the noble and learned Lord when Section 7 will be amended so that the English or Welsh child may have the same rights as his or her Scottish counterpart to apply for maintenance himself or herself. When will the children of those parts of the United Kingdom attain equality in this matter? Does the noble and learned Lord not agree that now that Scotland has led the way it is time for England and Wales to follow?
That said, we welcome the very limited extension to legal aid which the regulations represent.
8.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the final point which the noble Lord made, the different statutory provisions affecting England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other reflect differences in the underlying law which has hitherto prevailed. The noble Lord and I may have views as to which is the better of the two systems, but that is the present situation as Parliament determined it when the Act was passed.
This is not the place to detail the philosophy of the Child Support Act again. All those matters were fully debated. I have heard more criticism of the provisions of the Act on the lines which the noble Lord made tonight than constructive suggestions as to how the

1061
state should deal with a situation in which someone for no good reason refused to state who had primary responsibility for the maintenance of a child.
As regards the child support commissioners and the child support appeal tribunals, the present situation reflects that which has always obtained in respect of the social security tribunals and commissioners. I have said that when resources were available the social security commissioners would be a higher priority for me as regards the extension of legal aid. I could not contemplate that at present because of the general situation of the legal aid fund and the pressures upon it.
On the assumptions of those particular provisions in the draft order, I understand that there is universal agreement. Therefore, with some confidence I commend my Motion.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.20 to 8.30 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 254F:
After Clause 224, insert the following new clause:
("Extension of functions of the Chief Inspector
.—(1) In section 2 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 (functions of the Chief Inspector for England) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) The Chief Inspector for England shall—

(a) inspect each school in England where the governing body publish proposals for the purpose of acquiring grant-maintained status for the school, and make a written report to the Secretary of State expressing his opinion as to the extent to which the governing body (in so far as persons are named in the proposals as initial governors) would be capable of conducting the school efficiently and effectively if it acquires grant-maintained status;

(b) keep under review the extent to which aspects of the conduct of grant-maintained schools in England could, in his opinion, be improved without disproportionate expenditure by means of advice or assistance being provided to the governing body of any such school or schools."

(2) In section 6 of that Act (functions of the Chief Inspector for Wales) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) The Chief Inspector for Wales shall—

(a) inspect each school in Wales where the governing body publish' proposals for the purpose of acquiring grant-maintained status for the school, and make a written report to the Secretary of State expressing his opinion as to the extent to which the governing body (in so far as persons are named in the proposals as initial governors) would be capable of conducting the school efficiently and effectively if it acquires grant-maintained status;

(b) keep under review the extent to which aspects of the conduct of grant-maintained schools in Wales could, in his opinion, be improved without disproportionate expenditure by means
1062
of advice or assistance being provided to the governing body of any such school or schools."").

The noble Lord said: To a large extent, the amendment is self-explanatory. It requires that the office of Chief Inspector for England shall:
"make a written report to the Secretary of State expressing his opinion as to the extent to which the governing body would be capable of conducting the school efficiently and effectively if it acquires grant-maintained status".
It also requires him to keep under review certain aspects of the school which could, in his opinion, be improved when things are going wrong without disproportionate expenditure on the provision of advice or assistance to the governing body. The amendment makes similar provisions for Wales.
The reason for the amendment is that the Bill fails to address the longer term needs of grant-maintained schools in so far as they may have difficulties. If they fail, there is an emergency net in which to catch them in Clauses 61 and 65. However, if they have problems, no advisory support is available. No LEA support is available and the department is a long way away, often physically and spiritually. I suggest that the amendment may well provide for a basic level of support if things start to go wrong without there being the necessity to take drastic action. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I can be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The 1992 Schools Act places Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools under a general duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about: the quality of education in schools in England; the educational standards achieved; whether the financial resources made available are managed efficiently; and the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at those schools.
The first part of this amendment seeks to impose a duty on HMCI to inspect a school for the purpose of commenting on the likelihood of a new governing body, named in proposals published by the existing governors, being able to conduct a grant-maintained school effectively. School inspections, whether conducted by HMI or a registered inspector, are designed to report on a school as they find it. In the course of an inspection they will comment on a range of issues affecting the quality of a school, including the effectiveness of the existing governing body. We do not consider that it would be an appropriate—or, indeed, a practicable—extension of that role to require an assessment of the potential capabilities of a new governing body.
Of course, I share the concern that schools should be approved for grant-maintained status only where there is a good chance that they will be able to thrive and fully take advantage of the opportunities greater independence would give them. The existing procedures laid down by the Education Reform Act already make adequate provision in this respect.
Following the publication of statutory proposals by the governing body of a school to acquire grant-maintained status, there follows a two-month objection period in which objections to the proposals can be submitted to the Secretary of State. In reaching a decision on whether a set of proposals should be approved, the Secretary of State takes into account

1063
objections he has received as well as the detailed information published by the governors' in their statement of case. He may also have regard to information from other sources, such as any existing reports on the school or published examination results. It is current practice that, when a school does publish proposals, HMI visit the school at the Secretary of State's request with a view to advising him on its suitability as a whole for grant-maintained status. I expect that this practice will continue, at any rate where the school has not been recently inspected.
The Secretary of State is already well-informed about a school before he takes a decision on an application for grant-maintained status. I hope the Committee will, therefore, agree with me that there is no necessity to amend the Schools Act specifically to require a report on every application for grant-maintained status.
I turn now to the second half of this amendment which would require HMCI to keep under review what sort of advice or assistance could be offered to grant-maintained schools. I am pleased to say that the 1992 Act already allows HMCI to make reports on any matters which fall within his general functions, which I listed earlier. This would include reporting on grant-maintained schools, if he felt it appropriate to do so. He is also required to offer advice on request to the Secretary of State, and to inspect and report on any school or class of school which the Secretary of State might specify. In addition, HMCI produces an annual report to the Secretary of State, which is laid before Parliament.
In fact, as the Committee may be aware, HMCI has recently produced a report on self-governing (GM) schools. I think that this provides incontrovertible evidence that the very worthwhile intentions behind this amendment are already adequately served by the 1992 Act.
I wish to re-emphasise the point which I know lies behind the amendment. It is already common practice to send in the inspectorate in order to advise the Secretary of State about the suitability of a school to become grant-maintained.
Lord Addington: I have listened carefully to the Minister's full reply. I am afraid that it was at a greater pace than I could keep up with. I must read her reply. I believe that she covered all the issues underlying the amendment. I give no 100 per cent. guarantee that I shall not return to the matter, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 225 [Incorporation of governing bodies]:
[Amendment No. 255 not moved.]
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 255ZA:
Page 136, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in this section shall require the local education authority to transfer any property, rights and liabilities to the governing body.").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 255ZB and 225A. Amendment No. 225ZA is a probing amendment to see whether the incorporation
1064
of governing bodies of county schools will lead to the transfer of any property rights or liabilities from local education authorities to the schools' governing bodies. There have been rumours that that may be the effect and this amendment seeks only to elicit a definitive answer from the Minister.
Amendment No. 255ZB is a probing amendment to probe the nature of funds which incorporated bodies hold. Clause 225 provides for all LEA maintained governing bodies to receive corporate status. One of the powers which the incorporated governing body will receive in Clause 226(2) (d) is a power to:
"accept gifts of money, land and other property and apply it, or hold and administer it on trust, for any of those purposes".
Schools have always held, for various purposes, monies that have not been received from the local education authority. The money may belong to a parent-teacher association and been raised through fetes and other fund-raising activities, or it may have been given to the school by parents and friends. While such sums have been small in the past, not much interest has been shown in them. However, with the recent restrictions on local government expenditure, schools have been expanding their income-generating capacity by, for example, asking some parents to covenant money to schools.
As I said, this is a probing amendment and, as such, I have a number of questions on the status of such funds to ask the Minister. First, are the gifts of money, land and other property that are held on trust governed by charity law? If so, how does charity law apply to those funds? Secondly, if the funds are held as a charitable trust, how are the governors to be alerted to the fact that they will also become charity trustees? Thirdly, what access will there be by parents and members of the public to inspect the accounts of those trust funds? Finally, do the provisions of charity law differ according to whether the school is a county or a voluntary school?
I turn now to Amendment No. 255A. The purpose of the proposed new clause is to empower the Secretary of State to make a national scheme for the payment to governors of LEA-maintained schools of out-of-pocket expenses incurred on governor service and to remove the little-used power of local education authorities to make such schemes for the schools that they maintain. It would put the reimbursement of expenses to governors of LEA-maintained schools on the same footing as for governors of grant-maintained schools under paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 to the Bill which re-enacts the provision of the Education Reform Act 1988.
It is unfair and, I believe, unsatisfactory that only governors of grant-maintained schools should be able to recover expenses, as they now can, while governors of LEA-maintained schools depend for that right on the LEAs' willingness to give expenses, with the result that they are rarely given. The inability to recover expenses is a deterrent to governor service for people who are, at present, most under-represented on governing bodies; namely, the poorest sections of our society. The need for subsistence allowance is minimal. However, the cost of travel to governors'

1065
meetings, training sessions, et cetera, can be significant—especially, again, for the poorest sections of our society.
Of the various financial obstacles to governor service, the problem of expenses is, perhaps, less serious than the fact that while governors have by law to be given reasonable time off by their employers, that does not have to be paid; and, indeed, it is usually not paid time off. Removing that larger obstacle would be a much more complex and costly undertaking. Therefore, for the time being and for the purpose of this amendment, we are at least trying to remove the lesser obstacle of expenses. We believe that expenses should be put on an equal footing with that which applies to grant-maintained schools. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: If I may, I should like to deal with the amendments in a slightly different order from that put forward by the noble Lord. I shall start with the good news—although probably all my responses contain good news. However, as regards Amendment No. 255A, I think that I can give slightly better news. I do not agree with the noble Lord, but I am certainly grateful to him for the suggestion made in his amendment.
Section 58 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 gives LEAs the power to pay travelling and subsistence expenses of governors in accordance with a scheme made by them for that purpose. But because of the prohibition in subsection (7) it is not possible for governing bodies to reimburse their members' travelling and subsistence expenses where no such scheme has been made.
We have no hard evidence that the absence of such schemes has resulted in problems of recruitment and retention of governors, but, I accept that the absence of LEA schemes under Section 58 might cause difficulties for governors in some cases, as the noble Lord implied. We take the view that it is logical to move away from the discretionary powers of LEAs towards giving governing bodies the freedom to use their delegated budget for travel and subsistence payments.
To that end we propose to introduce a government amendment on Report which will allow governing bodies the discretion to use their delegated budgets to pay their members travel and subsistence expenses. I hope that that will go a considerable way towards meeting the very valid point made by the noble Lord.
I turn now to Amendment No. 255ZA moved by the noble Lord, and which he described as a probing amendment. As we understand it, the amendment is superfluous. The provision required in the amendment is already provided in the Bill. Clause 225(3) requires that any property, rights or liabilities attributable to a governing body immediately before incorporation shall be transferred to, and vested in, the body corporate. Subsection (4) explains that property is attributable to a governing body if it was held by, or on behalf of, any members or former members of the
1066
governing body. Similarly, rights and liabilities attributable to the governing body are those acquired or incurred by, or on behalf of, those members.
In most cases, these will amount to very little. Governors may have been given for the purposes of the school an item of equipment, for example, or money from parents to buy a vehicle. All the Bill does is to provide that such property is held by an incorporated governing body rather than the present unincorporated association.
Property, rights and liabilities of LEAs are not attributable to governing bodies and therefore cannot transfer to them. Taking the delegated budget as an example, there is no question of it somehow becoming the governing body's property. Expenditure under LMS schemes remains expenditure of the LEA.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 255ZD. Under Clause 226(2) (d), incorporated governing bodies will have the powers to accept gifts, money, land or other property, as I said, and to apply or hold and administer them on trust. The amendment spells out that such a trust would be a charitable trust. Again, I have to explain to the noble Lord that the amendment is otiose. However, if I may, I should explain the purpose behind what we are doing. Governing bodies will only have power under subsection (2) (d) to hold property on trust for the purposes of any activities that they have power to carry on. As those activities are confined to the government of the school and related purposes, and as the advancement of education is, as the noble Lord will know, a charitable purpose, it follows that the only trusts which the governing body has power to administer are, therefore, charitable. They could not, for example, hold property on private trust for the benefit of particular individuals.
According to my limited understanding of charitable law and trust law, I presume, therefore, that they would be bound by charity law. I believe that the noble Lord is concerned that the individuals who might be trustees of a charitable trust ought to be alerted to the fact that there are slightly more onerous duties that apply to being a trustee than apply in many other fields. However, I certainly take on board the noble Lord's suggestion that, possibly, some advice ought to be offered by means of a circular, or whatever, to trustees to ensure that where a trust is set up, and where that trust is obviously charitable, they are aware of their onerous duties. I hope that that explanation will be sufficient to enable the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord does so—indeed, if that is what he intends to do—I would ask the Minister to look seriously at the probing amendment which uses the word "charitable". Governors will need to be aware that they may be trustees with the obligations, the fiduciary duties, that that carries, whether or not they are charitable trustees. It is quite a complicated area of law and not one with which those concerned would necessarily be immediately familiar. The Minister's suggestion that there might be some guidance is most helpful. There are very much larger sums of money being raised by, for example, PTAs which are then passed to the school

1067
for use as regards particular projects within the school. Over the past few years this whole issue has become a much more major one.
Lord Henley: My advice from lawyers—I do have to take advice—is that adding the word would for various reasons cause complications relating to interpretation. I was trying to remember the word "guidance" earlier but it was not on the tip of my tongue. If some sort of guidance could be made available, certainly we would consider it so that, as the noble Baroness puts it, they are aware of their obligation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I think this is perhaps for me personally an historic event as it is the first time I have moved an amendment which has been accepted by the Government.
Lord Henley: I should make sure it is properly on the record that I was accepting part of the spirit of the amendment. To say that I was accepting the amendment would be going too far. I am certainly not accepting the amendment as it is. If the noble Lord examines the words that I use very carefully, he will discover that I accepted a degree of the spirit of the amendment. For a first that is probably enough for the noble Lord.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Will the Minister at least give us some assurance on this matter? I believe he mentioned the word "circular". He was honest enough—as he always is—to show that he was not too au fait with the law as it is. I do not complain about that as I believe this is a difficult area. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who I understand is a lawyer, has had experience of that matter. I believe that because of the difficulty of this area a circular should be issued which deals specifically with this point. I hope that we can at least get that assurance from the Minister tonight.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness is, I understand, still practising as a lawyer. Most of the law I learnt was before the fairly recent changes to the charities law and that is why I was stressing that my knowledge is not quite as up to date as it ought to be. But certainly I can give the assurance that I shall pass on to my noble friend the suggestion that some guidance could possibly be issued in this field.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for pointing out that this day is rather less historic than I had first imagined. But nevertheless the noble Lord explained the concerns fully as regards the probing amendment, Amendment No. 255ZA. There were four specific questions which I put when speaking to Amendment No. 255ZB. I believe those concerns would be addressed by any guidance which might or might not be forthcoming. This is a genuine area of concern. Amendmeut No. 255A concerns the expenses of governors. I shall await with great interest to hear what the noble Lord comes forward with as regards that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 225 agreed to.
Clause 226 [Powers of incorporated governing bodies]:
[Amendment No. 255ZB not moved.]
Clause 226 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 255A not moved.]
Schedule 12 [Incorporated governing bodies for county, voluntary and maintained special schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 256:
Page 197, line I, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3AA) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 257, 258, 259, 260 and 261. With the leave of the Committee, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 261B, 259A, 261A, 261C, 261D, 259B, 261AA. Some of those amendments are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I do not think I heard the Minister mention Amendments Nos. 259A and 261A. However, I may have misheard.
Lord Henley: I think I mentioned Amendment No. 259A. I apologise to the noble Lord if I did not mention Amendments Nos. 259A and 261C. I was going on to say that a number of these amendments are down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I shall speak to those amendments in the absence of my noble friend Lord Howell.
Lord Henley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. As the noble Lord will realise, my amendments are an attempt to meet the concerns of the noble Lord. Obviously I shall move my amendments, speak partly to some of his and then deal with some of the others in that grouping which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others when I come to respond to my own amendments, if that meets the wishes of the Committee.
I shall start with Amendment No. 261B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and Amendment No. 261 standing in his name and mine and Amendments Nos. 256 to 259 and Amendment No. 260 standing in my name. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for the contributions he has made on this issue. We all recognise the part he has played in the development of dual use facilities. I am conscious that he was, as a Member of another place, a co-sponsor of these provisions in the form of a Private Member's Bill which unfortunately ran out of time at the end of the last Parliament.
We have no difficulty with the noble Lord's amendments in principle. The series of Amendments Nos. 256 to 259 and 260 follow up a commitment given by my honourable friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire at Committee stage in another place on 2nd February. The effect of these amendments would be to ensure governing bodies of both voluntary and county schools may enter into transfer of control agreements which provide for some community use of a school's premises when not required for the purposes of the school during school hours as well as outside of school hours.

1069
The purpose of this part of Schedule 12 is to remove the current barriers to joint management arrangements where there is shared school and community use of a school's premises typically in the case of dual use sports facilities. The schedule rectifies an unintended consequence of earlier legislation. We have received representations from the Sports Council and others who have pointed out that there are cases where dual use agreements provide for some shared use while the school is technically still in session.
Section 22 of the Education Act 1944 provides for use of a voluntary school's premises to be under the control of the governing body during school hours as well as outside of school hours. We accept therefore that, as Schedule 12 is currently drafted, there could be an argument that the governing body of a voluntary school has no power to enter into a transfer of control agreement which covers a period during school hours. Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 accordingly secure that governing bodies of voluntary schools may enter into transfer of control agreements relating to the use of school premises when not required for school purposes during school hours as well as outside school hours.
However, control of the use of a county school's premises during school hours is not specifically vested in anyone. There should therefore be no barrier to governing bodies entering into agreements that provide for some dual use during school hours. We have concluded that an amendment to Schedule 12 in the case of county schools is not therefore required.
Amendment No. 258 provides for the local education authority to be consulted where a governing body intends to enter into a transfer of control agreement that provides for some shared use during school hours since the authority has an interest as a maintaining authority in the use to which a school's premises may be put.
Amendments Nos. 259, 260 and 261 make consequential amendments to the definitions of community use, school hours and transfer of control agreements to remove references to out of school hours.
I shall listen to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, but I hope that he will be able to withdraw Amendment No. 261B, or not move it when the time comes. On that basis I will then beg to move the amendments standing in my name. But, as I said earlier, I shall certainly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on his particular points towards the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: As I said a few minutes ago, I shall look after the amendments that concern sport in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who is abroad on business. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said in response to what was said in another place. However, people still have reservations about these measures. My brief has been provided by the local authority associations and the Sports Council. It is mainly their point of view that I shall be expressing.
Over the past 25 years governments of all political persuasions, sports councils, local authority associations and many other agencies have advocated
1070
consistently the community use of educational facilities. I noted the Minister referred to the fact that certain people "may" enter into an agreement. The word "shall" is not used, and that is where we may differ. That policy has been extremely successful. Millions of pounds have been invested by a range of parties to develop dual-use facilities. Our concern is to ensure that the legislation enables that policy to continue and does not positively deter future funding partnerships. At present local government finance is in a government straitjacket. Local authorities would find it difficult to fund a new sports project in an area where they were losing facilities due to the actions of the governors or some other body.
It is a pleasure to find something in the Bill to welcome, and we do welcome paragraphs 4 to 7 of Schedule 12. They begin to remedy the Government's mistake in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 when school governors were given the duty of controlling the use of school premises outside school hours. They cannot delegate that responsibility. At a stroke, existing agreements for joint school and community use of premises were rendered void. Arrangements continue on the basis of good will but could not withstand legal challenge. New agreements cannot be made. So we welcome those paragraphs which are intended to legitimise past agreements and to make new agreements possible.
We also welcome acceptance in another place of a more all-embracing definition of the community than was in the original text, and Amendments Nos. 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 and 281 which, in the case of voluntary schools, will allow control-of-use agreements to cover parts of school premises during the school day as well as outside school hours. That helpfully recognises representations that have been made on a real point.
We are not clear why the same is not being done for county schools, hence Amendment No. 261 B. Current legislation does not spell out who is responsible for the control of the use of school premises during the school day, the LEA or the governors. The position needs to be clarified for the sake of current and prospective partners in control-of-use agreements at county schools. If it is argued that county schools, like voluntary schools, will be able to have such agreements which embrace some community use during the school day without new legislation to specify that, will guidance be issued to make that absolutely clear to all concerned?
Guidance might also address two other worries. Amendment No. 261D refers to the fact that most existing agreements will have been made by the local education authority on behalf of the school. Presumably it is not intended that such agreements (which will have been endorsed or accepted by governors) will be denied the legitimisation offered by paragraph 7. If it is not felt that the point needs to be covered specifically because it is implicit, that will again need to be spelt out in guidance to all concerned.
The relevant paragraphs of the schedule do not address the question of grant-maintained schools. At any school at any time a ballot of parents may lead to an application for grant-maintained status which the

1071
Secretary of State may accept. We understand that the Secretary of State intends to use his powers to ensure that the articles of government for grant-maintained schools line up with these provisions and that grant-maintained school governors will inherit any commitments under control-of-use agreements. That again will need to be clearly spelt out in guidance if future community use of education premises is to continue to be encouraged. It will need to be absolutely clear that future investment of community resources at school sites runs no risk of being diverted or lost. The commitments made by all parties to an agreement will need to be binding on their successors. As one knows, when children whose parents are governors leave the school, the governors change and new governors are elected or appointed. They may not have the same point of view.
Those points are essential preliminaries to the key amendments, Amendments Nos. 259A and 261A. As drafted, the new Section 22(3B) (c) of the 1944 Act and Section 42(2) (c) of the 1986 Act allow school governors to displace community use in favour of school use at any time. In effect, they will be able to override any agreement. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs if we are asking people to join in and invest in a project. The only limitation is that notice should be "reasonable" and that the use of the premises should be "reasonably" required by the school. As has been said many times in this place, what is reasonable to one party may be unreasonable to another.
The amendments would place more trust in governors to negotiate agreements appropriate to local circumstances. Most existing agreements will already address the circumstances in which school use may displace community use. Where an acceptable arrangement has been negotiated between the parties to the agreement, it is unnecessary and undesirable for legislation to override this. Where the point has not been addressed in an agreement, and in the case of new agreements, the amendment allows the parties to consider the matter and to specify the circumstances where school use may take precedence. The emphasis is on both parties acting jointly.
These are important amendments. It is unlikely that in future any district council, leisure department, parish council or voluntary body would be prepared to invest capital and revenue on developments on a school site for shared school and community use if any agreement on the arrangements for sharing can, by law, simply be overridden by the governors giving notice that they require use of the premises on a particular occasion.
We recognise that there will be occasions when school use during an evening or weekend is appropriate. We simply believe that healthy delegation should allow those matters to be sorted out locally. The heavy handed approach of the Bill as drafted could well be counter-productive. Local circumstances will vary and with them will vary the extent to which governors should reasonably be able to disrupt a programme of community activity.
A district council considering the investment of hundreds of thousands of pounds on a school site to
1072
provide a swimming pool which it could equally build elsewhere would need to be confident that its planned programme of community use cannot be disrupted. The school, which would not have had a swimming pool without the district council investment, will benefit from its use during the day and has not lost anything if its access at other times is subject to strict limitations. The law needs to recognise such circumstances and not simply assume that it is always a case of an existing school facility being made available for wide community use, in which case it may be reasonable to give greater priority for any school needs outside school hours.
The amendments are important if that part of the Bill is to achieve what is intended. It would be a tragedy to fall at this hurdle in trying to put right the mistake of the 1986 Act. We can all agree that it is in the public interest to make the fullest possible use of public investment. Where "leisure" and education funding is pooled in an investment on a school site for use by both school and community, better facilities can be created than would be the case if each side acted independently, or perhaps could not act individually because of lack of finance. Typically those arrangements relate to provision for sport. But there is no reason why that should not equally apply to music, drama and a range of other activities. Shared investment and shared facilities will enhance the opportunities and the curriculum for school children, will strengthen links between the school and its community, and will provide all sections of the community with constructive opportunities for leisure pursuits.
The successful implementation of the national curriculum is considerably enhanced by the vast range of dual use facilities that have been provided in the past. Future joint investments are crucial to future delivery of the national curriculum. We therefore need to continue to encourage such development, building on the undoubted success of the many existing schemes set up over the past 25 years or so.
However, that will not occur if we remain obsessed with ensuring that ultimate power and control rests with the governors. We can surely trust governors and local authorities not to enter into agreement unless they are satisfied that the terms agreed upon suit both parties. We do not help them by insisting on a clause which may deter serious investment from interests other than education. It is understood that governors need some reassurance. However, so do other sections of the public who may be investors.
The current wording will deter district councils and others from investing in joint use facilities because of the stricture on the moneys available to them. The amendments represent a solution which has the support of the Sports Council and the local authority associations representing both the leisure and the education interest in those areas. Duplication is not the answer and cannot be afforded. The provisions for agreement ought to be set out now. However, I believe that the provision should be more mandatory than "may". The provision should include "will" or "shall". I beg to move.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Perhaps the Minister will deal briefly with a matter that has caused some concern in recent years. It is related to the amendments. I refer to the wide sale of playing fields. Since my noble friend started speaking, I have sought to remember which provision in the law triggered off such sales. I confess that I am not sure at present. However, the reality is that playing fields are being sold. We have referred to dual use. The playing fields that I have in mind have no use now because in many cases school fields were built upon with the results that one would expect. I hope that the Government are aware of that. I am sure that they are because it has been raised on a number of occasions. Perhaps the Minister would like to say a few words about it.
Lord Peston: I think that this is a rare occasion, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, where we agree in principle. We favour the community use of facilities, first, because we feel that it is good to bring the community into the school and, secondly, because of the efficient use of resources argument.
I am not certain that I fully understood what the noble Lord said. I thought he said in his opening remarks that the problem, as defined by my noble friend Lord Howell, was exactly the one addressed by the Government's amendments and that, therefore, they would deal with all the problems on which my noble friend Lord Dean elucidated. I should like to know whether that is the case; if so, there is no problem. What we wish to do is to see that no obstacles are placed in the way of using the facilities, with people who are not part of the school putting in resources. Can the noble Lord clarify that?
The other point which I had difficulty in following—and unlike the Minister, I have no legal knowledge—is that I take it that the distinction between what happens in school hours and what happens outside school hours is crucial. I believe that more important is the use of facilities outside school hours, but the use of facilities, when available, in school hours is not uninteresting. Perhaps I may also place the burden on the noble Lord to say more of the distinction between the two.
My main point is whether we are in sufficient agreement that the government amendments achieve what my noble friend Lord Howell wanted.
Lord Addington: I thank the Government for making such movement as has come from their Benches. It is nice to know that they are listening and moving towards our arguments on certain occasions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in wishing for more clarification so as to be sure that there is no other area to which we shall wish to come back. I have the nagging suspicion that the Government have met most of the anxieties which have come from this side and, indeed, all parts of the Committee. We merely ask for a little more clarification for those of us who are not legally trained.
Lord Henley: I do not know whether anyone will speak to the two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, or did the noble Lord, Lord Dean, address them?
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We have generally indicated that we want to believe that the Government have met our points. We have no reason to suppose they have not and welcome it. There is just the small point that if arrangements have been made for the use of school premises and then there is a clash of interests, there is an issue about ensuring that adequate notice is given and insisting on it. This is particularly necessary where lecturers may have a contractual relationship with students to supply the lectures which can only be possible if the premises are available. Therefore, the point needs to be checked.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that our amendments will not necessarily go the whole way that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, wanted. What I was hoping to say in my generally reasonable manner is that I think we go a long way down that line and we have met a great many of the points. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is nodding—far more violently than the noble Lord, Lord Peston, so I have a degree of—
Lord Peston: If I may reveal my lack of expertise, I become intrigued. I was hoping that the noble Lord would tell me where he does not meet what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, wanted and why.
Lord Henley: Perhaps the noble Lord will bear with me. Perhaps I may start by picking up the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about flexibility, the time of notice and whether it should be a fixed time, as he was suggesting, or—as we would prefer—some expression like "reasonable notice". I could give some examples.
Perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying that I think that we are all at one in our aims in a desire to see a greater dual use, wherever possible. We see one of the advantages in our approach that in effect comes up in the noble Lord's amendment that by going for flexibility we make life considerably easier for schools by allowing for a reasonable period of time rather than the fixed two weeks which the noble Lord's amendment suggests. I think that we are more likely to encourage dual use agreements, if the governing body can have some flexibility. I think that flexibility would be better served, as I suggested, by giving that governing body reasonable notice, which should allow the needs of the school and other regular users of the premises to be reconciled rather than the requirement for a fixed notice period.
If I may, I shall go back to the points of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. Perhaps I may start with the first two of his points on county schools and their freedom to enter into agreements and the inherited commitment of the grant-maintained schools. Quite simply, the answer is yes. We shall be offering guidance to both which will make this perfectly clear. The noble Lord then went on to argue that I had said, "may" and he wanted something more definitive on the grounds of "shall". I think that he was referring to his or his noble friend's Amendment No. 261D which we believe imposes an unreasonable burden on the governing bodies of county and maintained schools.

1075
We have been very careful to provide for agreements entered into before the Bill comes into force to be enforceable. This amendment would go further than that by forcing governing bodies to accept transfer of control agreements which may have been entered into by the local education authority without that governing body's consent. We believe that in that particular case the noble Lord's amendment goes too far.
Members of the Committee also asked why we had not included county schools in our proposals. I believe I made it clear that the use of a county school's premises during school hours is not specifically vested in anyone. There should therefore be no barrier to governing bodies entering into agreements to provide for some dual use during school hours. We therefore concluded that an amendment to Schedule 12 in the case of county schools would not be required. However, we would expect county schools to consult their LEAs should they wish to enter into agreements affecting the use of school premises during school hours. In the case of the county schools, the LEA will generally be—
Lord Dean of Beswick: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. He referred to a county school. Let us suppose that one had a local authority which took a meaningful policy decision by a substantial majority in the council chamber that all the county schools under its control, as a matter of policy, had to share their school facilities with the community in which they were sited because there were no other facilities there. What would the situation be?
Lord Henley: Perhaps we are further apart than I thought. It is a matter for the school and not for the LEA. No doubt the LEA might encourage the schools as and where possible, and certainly, going the other way, we would expect, as I tried to make clear, county schools to consult their LEA before they entered into any agreements, because those agreements might affect the LEA, affecting the use of school premises during school hours. In the case of county schools, the LEA will generally be the owners of the premises. Again I stress that we shall certainly draw that out in guidance once the Bill has received Royal Assent.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 259A, 261A and 261C. We have sought in Schedule 12 to include these admittedly rather complex arrangements as statutory terms in transfer of control agreements because it seemed to the Government that governing bodies should be able temporarily to regain control of premises that are included in a transfer of control agreement. Schedule 12 provides that the governing body must give reasonable notice and that the premises must be reasonably required for the purposes of the school.
I do not believe that should be burdensome on other parties to an agreement; it is simply a reflection of the primary purpose of the school premises. There may be cases where a governing body needs access; for example, when it wants a room for a parents' evening or to use the swimming pool for a school swimming gala. The schedule makes it clear, with safeguards for other parties, that the governors can have access under
1076
these circumstances. I believe that that is a safeguard for the governing body which will provide positive encouragement to governors to enter into dual use joint management arrangements.
Lastly, I turn to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, on the sale of playing fields. I have to say that it goes somewhat wide of the amendment. I note his particular anxieties and stress that the Government believe in appropriate use of playing fields wherever possible. If one can give greater use to, for example, playing fields by some dual use, that is surely in the interests of all concerned. I hope that the amendments we have discussed and the response of the Government have given assurance to the noble Lord, and to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that we are certainly keen to ensure that dual use procedures should be allowed to work as well as possible.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful for the detailed way in which the Minister replied to the amendment and to the point made by my noble friend and colleague Lord Dormand. I do not want to go down that road again tonight. It is a fact that there is fear of a diminution of what I would call community facilities, which perhaps would be better incorporated into some of the schools, but which unfortunately are not there and are not anywhere else in the area. So some children are receiving no physical or environmental education in some areas because the school has no space and there are no facilities in the area. What few sports facilities were there for communal use have gone because of the tightening of local authority strings.
Having said that, we may be able to talk at length about those issues on another occasion. As I said, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. However, in withdrawing the amendment, I should like to say that the people who have asked me to put the case on their behalf tonight will want the Minister to have the courtesy to consider what has been said. They may be completely satisfied with his reply or there may be some caveat that they wish to enter at a later stage.
Lord Henley: I note what the noble Lord said. Obviously we note his concern. He spoke about withdrawing the amendment. I hope he will not do so because it is mine to withdraw and I have moved it.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 257, 258 and 259:
Page 197, line 4, leave out ("outside school hours").
Page 197, line 14, at end insert:
("(3AA) The governing body shall not enter into any transfer of control agreement which makes or includes provision for the use of the whole or any part of the school premises during school hours unless they have first obtained the local education authority's consent to the agreement in so far as it makes such provision.").
Page 197, line 28, leave out ("outside school hours").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
[Amendments Nos. 259A and 259B not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 260 and 261:
Page 198, line 23, leave out ("and "outside school hours" shall be construed accordingly").
Page 198, line 32, leave out ("outside school hours").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
[Amendments Nos. 261A to 261D not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 202, line 10, leave out paragraph 10.
The right reverend Prelate said: I am never entirely at ease when dealing with schedules. If I have understood this one correctly, paragraph 10, to which my amendment relates, deals with the disposal of assets of a discontinued voluntary school. The Bill as drafted hands those assets over to the trustees.
I have no wish to be ungrateful, but it may be that this is not quite so sweet smelling a bouquet as appears at first sniff. Exactly what is it that will be handed over to the trustees? As I understand it, it will not be the school premises—there is unlikely to be any land. Any surplus delegated budget would belong to the LEA. So it may be that we are talking about a redundant computer, a vintage kettle and an unclaimed mack.
Furthermore, it is not only the assets that will be transferred to the trustees but the liabilities. What will the liabilities be? They could be staff redundancy costs or liability for personal injury claims that have not been met. In addition there could be a financial and administrative muddle because we are dealing with a discontinued school.
If I have understood the position correctly, therefore, this particular jumble sale collection of items, together with the liabilities, is probably best given to the LEA rather than to the trustees. But maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of paragraph 10 of the schedule, in which case I stand to be corrected. If I have got it right, I beg to move my amendment that this particular paragraph be deleted.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: The effect of the right reverend Prelate's amendment would be to remove any provision for the handling of land and other property—a broken kettle or whatever—attributable to the incorporated governing bodies of voluntary schools, if the schools were to close. There needs to be some mechanism for dealing with such property. But we are aware that the present provisions of paragraph 10 are unwelcome to the right reverend Prelate and possibly, as he put it, do not smell quite right.
I understand that officials have discussed with Church of England representatives the difficulties that the Church perceives with paragraph 10. In consequence, we propose to table further government amendments on Report which would treat land and other property of incorporated governing bodies of voluntary schools upon closure in a similar way to those of county schools. We shall be keeping in close
1078
touch with the Church's representatives. Officials have recently written to them offering a further meeting to discuss the content of the government amendments.
It is therefore our intention that the Bill should provide for the handling of land and other property in a way which will be acceptable to the right reverend Prelate. Accordingly, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging response. In the light of it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 262A not moved.]
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 227 [National Curriculum]:
The Deputy Chairman (The Viscount of Oxfuird): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 262B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 262C due to pre-emption.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 262B:
Page 137, line 26, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: The section in the 1988 Act for which the new subsection (4) is a substitute, is perfectly adequate for the Secretary of State's job. The 1988 Act currently reads:
"An order under subsection (2) (c) above may authorise the making of such provisions giving full effect to or otherwise supplementing the provisions made by the order as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient; and any provisions made under such an order shall, on being published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, have effect for the purposes of this chapter as if made by the order".
While in themselves those powers are arguably too general, the practice that the Secretary of state has adopted for consultation on each year's assessment orders is one which has the broad agreement of those consulted even though it must be said—which is not a unique situation—that the Secretary of State does not always seem to listen to the views put to him.
The new subsection provides draconian powers for the Secretary of state. He will be able to target governors, local education authorities and head teachers individually for direction in terms of assessment arrangements if he so chooses. The Secretary of State will identify an individual —for example, the chair or chief executive of the SCAA—and give him or her full statutory responsibility for all aspects of tests, supplementary test material, audit arrangements which may be deemed compulsory for schools and so forth.
In addition, the assessment audit arrangements have been tightened to what seems to be the point of absurdity. The auditor will have statutory powers to enter the premises of a school, even to stand behind the teacher while the tests or SATs are taking place, and to take away any material he chooses. All that gives the auditor the status and powers of an OFSTED inspector. However, OFSTED and registered inspectors have to go through rigid procedures of consultation before they are able to enter schools for the registered inspection. In contrast, the auditor will have lightening flying squad powers which will only serve to alienate schools still further.
It should be noted that the Secretary of State's review of the national curriculum and assessment will include the central administration and auditing arrangements currently experienced by schools. Surely it is unnecessary to legislate for a specific type of auditing practice ahead of that review and to do so inevitably calls into question the validity and sincerity of the Secretary of State's commitment to the review.
Above all, the introduction of even more hard-nosed auditing will only serve to alienate still further a profession whose professional judgment collectively has been consistently undermined over the years by successive Secretaries of State. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Subsection (4) really goes too far. The Government want a tight inspection and testing regime and, in spite of the hot water they are in at the moment, they will doubtless achieve something like it. But the kind of detail we are talking about here is an instance of over-egging the pudding. Not only that: it is offensive to the thousands of committed teachers whom the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for one, who is not in his place, went out of his way to praise so eloquently (and rightly) earlier in our proceedings.
Subsection (4) will go down terribly badly in schools. Do the Government want that? Can they not see the sense in moderation, in healing rifts rather than opening them? There is an insensitivity about these provisions which is astonishing.
I should like to quote the words of a serving head teacher on the subject. He writes:
"For educational legislation the use of language is worrying. Lay persons venturing for the first time into a closer study of this short section of the law about the curriculum may be forgiven, as they stumble across the liberal use of terms like 'impose', 'require', 'comply', 'authority', 'inspect', `pursuance', for imagining they have in error picked up copies of the latest Road Traffic or Customs and Excise Act. The connotations of some of these words give no hint of any further desire for partnership".
I wonder how the noble Baroness the Minister would react if there was some authority which had the power to intervene in her daily work—power to enter her office, to inspect the briefing documents she was gathering for this Bill, to have copies of them taken away. She would probably regard it as an affront to her professional capabilities. Teachers have sensibilities too.
A motto for so much of this Bill seems to be "Mother knows best". But no good mother would behave like this towards her children, not, that is, if she wanted a decent relationship with them.
Since this is all about assessment, and heavy-handed assessment at that, I should like to quote a short extract which caught my eye in a medical journal last December. It said, and I quote very briefly:
"The Japanese secret for manufacturing industry may be applied to medicine too, says Robert Maxwell in a reyiew in Quality in Health Care. Quality is not achieved by inspection at the end of the production line, nor can it be imposed from above. It is a result of the shared aspirations and concerted efforts of all those concerned, for whom it is a higher priority than any personal interest".
If in manufacturing and in medicine, then in education too. If we want to emulate the Japanese in all their
1080
material success, we could begin by adopting the philosophy that underpins it and have done with the worst of these impositions from above.
Baroness Blatch: In responding to the amendment I wonder whether I may open by posing a straight question to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. Given that Ofsted has reported inconsistencies of marking between schools and across local authorities, if there is to be confidence in the system, what form of verification would the noble Earl put in place; and would he require power to do it?
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I do not think that it is for me to write the Government's legislation for them. I certainly would not produce anything quite so intrusive and, I might say, nannying as this particular one.
Baroness Blatch: That is an interesting and very revealing answer. What the noble Earl has refused even to acknowledge is that, if there is inconsistency, there is a need for public accountability of the system. If children are to be marked against national standards across the whole of the school sector, and if judgments are to be made by parents about the efficiency and effectiveness of that marking, there needs to be a system of verification.
Lord Judd: But will the Minister not agree that what she has just said underlines the whole problem? If we are talking about partnership into the future, why does she assume that teachers are not as concerned about consistency as she is and that by agreement it would not be possible to have perfectly civilised and reasonable arrangements for monitoring and getting agreed standards? What is unacceptable is this constant implication that teachers are not to be trusted and must be checked off and monitored impersonally. That is no basis for partnership into the future.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Judd, again misses the point. It is those teachers who believe that they are marking well and believe that what they are doing is consistent with one another who find at the end of the day when the verification system is put in place that they are not.
What is important is that there must be confidence in the marking. We have faced that problem with the marking of GCSE scripts. There needs to be a consistency across the board if people are to have confidence in the system of assessment and testing. All I was asking in the question was that if you will not allow even the provision for allowing a verification system to be put in place, what will you do to ensure confidence in the system? Teachers deserve a proper system of making sure that the world knows that what they are doing is consistent with standards across the board. The answers were revealing.
Subsection (4) is on a very narrow point. It is there to make absolutely certain that the Secretary of State does have the power to put in place a system of verification by auditors so that there is a consistency

1081
of marking across the school sector. But the amendment would remove that important power needed by the Secretary of State—
Baroness Seear: I am grateful to the noble Lady for giving way. This is a genuine inquiry for information. When the noble Baroness refers to verification by auditors, who are these people and what are their qualifications to do this levelling out of the marking? Many of us who have been involved in marking know that it is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. I would hate to be given the job. Who are these auditors? The title "auditor" fills me with alarm in this context, but perhaps I misunderstand.
Baroness Blatch: They are actually educational professionals who do the auditing. For example, they can be the GCSE boards themselves who can put in place an auditing system. So there is no question of scripts marked by teachers being audited by accountants. They are audited by educational professionals who can give a proper judgment as to whether the system is consistent across the board. Ofsted has had a hand in that too. It was Ofsted which brought the information to us that there was inconsistency in parts of the education sector. The important thing is that there needs to be a system of verification.
As things stand, assessments are made in schools by teachers. Teachers also mark national curriculum tests. It is important that the standards they adopt should be consistent and that they should apply nationally. It is important for pupils when they move between schools, so that their progress should not be hindered; important for parents who need to know how standards in individual classrooms measure up to standards nationally; important for schools themselves, when results are published, to know that they are arrived at on a consistent basis. It is the importance of that consistency that seems to have been set aside by these amendments.
Subsection (4) of Clause 227 is designed to clarify the Secretary of State's powers to specify appropriate assessment arrangements: in particular the arrangements which may be made to verify the results of assessment and testing. That verification, or audit of the results, is essential if we are to have confidence that our children are being assessed against objective, external standards.
Auditors must necessarily examine test scripts and other evidence to ensure that assessments have been carried out correctly and to consistent standards. The provisions of subsection (4) enable auditors to achieve that end. Clearly, we acknowledge that the great majority of schools would wish to co-operate and assist in this process. All the evidence is that they do. The proposed amendment would simply prevent this being established as a requirement of the assessment arrangements.
Other provisions in subsection (4) are largely of a technical nature designed to specify particular ways in which the existing powers to make orders governing national curriculum assessment can be exercised. It also allows arrangements made by others to form part
1082
of national curriculum assessment and so allows, as I have said, the GCSE examinations to be key stage 4 assessments for 16 year-olds. As we know, that will be put in train very shortly.
There is nothing new or controversial in this subsection. It is already clearly understood by virtue of Section 10(2) of the Education Reform Act that local education authorities, governors and head teachers have a duty to secure the implementation of the national curriculum. Arrangements for the verification of results are a necessary part of the assessment process, and I ask noble Lords not to press the amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to ask her one question. Is she not at all concerned at the signals that this kind of thing is going to send out to schools?
Baroness Blatch: If there was a serious problem, I should have thought that it would have manifested itself before now. This system has been in place for three years. We have been auditing the testing of seven year-olds not just this year, but last year and the year before and we have not had the problem that is anticipated by the noble Earl. It is interesting that he comes forward with the problem now.
If we are serious about producing information for parents and about telling them that their children have achieved a Level 1,2,3 or 4 (up to Level 10), they need to have some confidence that a Level 2 means the same in Berkshire as in Durham or Cumbria. We need consistency to ensure that there is proper confidence. Most teachers would welcome consistency in marking across the system.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: We are not going to pursue the amendment to a Division tonight because this issue seems so symptomatic of so much that is wrong with the Bill that, having listened to the arguments, proceeding to a Division would be a very odd way in which to register that anxiety. In fact, having listened to the Minister's arguments, I am even more concerned than I was before.
I want to level with the Minister and to explain the problem. She tells noble Lords that there is nothing controversial in this Bill—
Baroness Blatch: No, I did not.
Lord Judd: I am sorry; I beg the Minister's pardon. She has said that there is nothing controversial in this particular part of the Bill or in this proposition. If she reads Hansard, she will see that that is what she has told the Committee this evening. What I am saying is that that is her view, but many people in the teaching profession feel that it is a highly controversial proposition and have made very strong representations to other noble Lords about it. That illustrates the degree to which the Government, in isolation and in contact with their own bureaucrats, somehow form decisions about what is controversial and what is not but do not recognise that other people have views about what is controversial and what is not.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord that we know there are anxieties about the whole system of the national curriculum, assessment and testing. I said that there is no contention about this issue—or rather, that no contention has been registered with the department. We have had a great deal of contact with teachers—and, indeed, with teacher unions—but this is not a particular issue that has arisen in their anxieties about testing. There needs to be auditing. Local authorities exercise their own version of auditing because they want consistency across their authority. They have informal systems to ensure that there is a consistency of approach to the marking of scripts, and teachers have accepted that. There is only a dipstick approach to making sure that that consistency is robust, stands up to public scrutiny and ensures confidence in the system for parents.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister said that there is nothing new in this—I do not think that she will dispute that those were her words—with the implication, "What are we all getting worried about?". I am glad that the Minister is shaking her head; but she said there is nothing new. The provisions mean that the auditor will have statutory powers to enter the premises of a school, to stand behind a teacher while the testing on SATs is taking place and to take away any material that he chooses. Can the noble Baroness tell me of any other instance where that is allowed to take place?
Baroness Blatch: What I can say to the noble Lord is that it is nothing new: that right was provided in the 1988 Act. Ever since the tests have been implemented, there has been that right to go in. There was some element of doubt about whether the 1988 Act covered all of this, and subsection (4) of Clause 227 is to put beyond any doubt the Secretary of State's power to put this arrangement in place. This has been going on since 1988 and verification processes have been taking place. If there has been a great deal of protest to noble Lords, noble Lords might, over the years, have done us the courtesy of passing those complaints on to the department.
Lord Judd: In conclusion, we must take seriously the Minister's observations that there have been no representations to her and her officials on the issue. I put it to her in all seriousness that if I were in her shoes I should be most worried by that. It suggests that many sincere, genuine and dedicated members of the teaching profession, because they believe that when they have strong views they are never listened to, are now so exasperated that they have given up trying to communicate. The point I am making is that they are communicating most strongly to the rest of us and we are left in no doubt about the situation.
All Members of the Committee are agreed about standards and we wish to have comparable standards across the country. We are saying that that can be achieved with a responsible profession on the basis of partnership and by inviting teachers to contribute to the issue of how that can best be done rather than the policing in the impersonal way suggested by the clause. The other issue which has not been established
1084
by the Minister tonight—it just has not been established—is why all the new draconian powers are necessary. The powers already exist; the Minister has the power to send in inspectors. Inspectors have the qualifications and the knowledge to make informed judgments about standards. Why the necessity for all the new powers? Why suddenly is all this required? That has not been established.
I feel most strongly about the issue but the tone of the Minister's response, not only the words with which we are dealing, indicates that it is a major strategic dimension to the Bill and we must find more strategic ways of tackling it.
Baroness Seear: I wish to clarify one point and I am searching for genuine information. Many of us who have been involved in the marking world are entirely familiar with the idea of the external examiner. We all accept external examining; one must have that. What is the difference between what we are being offered here and the external examiner, who has existed for years? They are not always consistent; one changes external examiners and all kinds of things change with them. But that is another issue which we cannot go into tonight. Cannot the exercise be carried out in the kind of way that an external examiner would do so? It is not necessary to stand behind people and grab their papers, or whatever it was we were being told they had the power to do, in order to carry out the job. What is the difference? I really want to get at the answer.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness was referring to the involvement of an external examiner. There children take the tests in school and they are then whisked away to be externally marked. External examiners are concerned with consistency of marking at a distance. We are talking predominantly about a system which is marked in school by the teachers. Contrary to what we are led to believe by the newspapers, seven year-olds are tested by teachers over a long period of 10 or 12 weeks. There is nothing draconian about that. Teachers do not stand with the sword of Damocles hanging over them. The examiners work alongside teachers and watch and observe how the teachers are assessing young people in schools. They comment upon whether the marking of those children in those schools is consistent with the standard of marking across an area in order that we achieve greater consistency. They behave in a sensitive way. They are fellow professionals who themselves are in a classroom doing the same job. As regards the noble Baroness's question, the difference is that we are talking about marking, which is predominantly done in schools by teachers, and ensuring that there is a consistency of approach to marking.
Lord Judd: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 262C:
Page 137, line 27, after ("order,") insert:
("—
(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) In exercising his functions under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the National Curriculum occupying not more than

1085
70 per cent. of the time (in each key stage) which in his opinion is generally available in schools for the delivery of the curriculum mentioned in section 1 above.
(1B) Subsection (1A) above does not prejudice the generality of subsection (1) above."
(b)").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would insert an additional provision into Section 4 of the 1988 Act; it is the duty to establish a national curriculum by order. The existing provisions require the Secretary of State:
"to establish a complete National Curriculum as soon as is reasonably practicable … and … to revise that Curriculum whenever he considers it necessary or expedient to do so".
The intention of the amendment is to lead the Secretary of State towards revising the subject-based national curriculum, a process which is already in hand, so that it occupies not more than about 70 per cent. of school time. The remaining time will be used for religious education which is required—although not part of the national curriculum—and for the purposes of providing the Section 1 curriculum: a balanced and broadly-based curriculum which, first, promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society and, secondly, prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
We believe that school time should be given to achieving all those aims. The current statutory provisions are given in Sections 1 to 4 of the 1988 Act for a balanced and broadly-based curriculum which includes a basic curriculum. That includes both religious education and, for pupils aged 5 to 16, the national curriculum.
The national curriculum comprises attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements for a list of 10 subjects or, with Welsh, 11 in Wales. It is split by age groups into four key stages. The attainment targets and programmes of study have been devised subject by subject on the advice of NCC and the assessment arrangements have been devised on the advice of SEAC. All are enforced by statutory orders.
A wide consensus has emerged that the statutory orders are over-detailed, over-prescriptive and have led to an unmanageable situation. Indeed, Sir Ron Dearing has now been appointed chairman designate of the SCAA and is chairman meanwhile of both the NCC and SEAC. In that capacity he was asked by the Secretary of State only last month as a first priority to map out a strategy to simplify the current framework so as to remove needless over-elaboration and over-prescription.
Nevertheless, in spite of that, no clear ceiling has been set for the overall size of the national curriculum and its assessment arrangements. The Government have repeatedly declined to address that problem. That is what the amendment aims to deal with.
The Government's original proposals in July 1987 in The National Curriculum 5–16; A consultation document made these two points:
"the foundation subjects commonly take up 80–90 per cent. of the curriculum in schools where there is good practice",
1086
but also included is an illustrative table of allocations of curriculum time for key stage 4 showing 75 per cent. to 85 per cent. of time allocated to foundation subjects, with another 10 per cent. identified as being available for, at that time, GCSE subjects.
During the Committee stage of the Education Reform Bill on 17th December 1987 the then Minister of State, Angela Rumbold, said:
"During the consultation period we discussed how to achieve what is required in the core and foundation subjects within a given time and whether the time allocated to them should be 60 per cent. during the primary school years, and 80 per cent. during secondary school years. Our view is that it should be possible for all the core and foundation subjects at secondary school level in most, or at least in many, cases to be contained within about 70 per cent. of the school curriculum time.
We feel that there is sufficient time outside that allocation to core and foundation subjects for schools to allow children to study other important aspects within the curriculum. We are anxious to preserve a balance and breadth of the curriculum that has been part and parcel of the thinking that led to our introduction of a national curriculum".
The amendment suggests 70 per cent. as the appropriate limit for statutory prescription in each key stage. The figure of 70 per cent. in the amendment is intended to introduce a broad sense of proportion into the statutory arrangements. Of course a case could be made for other figures, higher and lower, but our principal long-term anxiety is that breadth and balance of the curriculum are driven out by an over-elaborate and over-extensive national curriculum.
The amendment has been drafted to allow elements of discretion and flexibility around the 70 per cent. figure. The Secretary of State would not be bound absolutely by it but would have to have regard to the desirability of that figure. There are also variations between schools in the length of the school day. Therefore, the amendment is drafted to take account of the time which in his opinion is generally available.
It should be remembered that quite a large proportion of teachers' work occurs out of school hours—for example, in preparation and marking—so the time constraints of the school day are not the only factor. But, as things stand, it is absolutely clear that under the statutory arrangements the teachers' workload in and out of school hours is excessive. The assessment arrangements of the national curriculum should be urgently cut back, as revisions of subject orders will properly take longer to complete.
It is quite clear to me—and, I believe, to many others—that the Minister's response to the amendment will be studied very carefully outside the Chamber. We very much hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of stating clearly the Government's intention of cutting back statutory prescription so as to occupy less time in total and in proportion within the school day and that she will state when such reductions will first take effect in schools. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Addington: The amendment now before the Committee is an important one, not only because it states that not more than 70 per cent. shall be prescribed, but also because it says that 30 per cent.

1087
shall not be. It allows for a degree of flexibility which is not controlled from the centre. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, we are trying to introduce a bench-mark of flexibility where the national curriculum does not try to strangle other innovations outside the curriculum.
My name is attached to the amendment because I think that it is a constructive suggestion. It would stop the national curriculum becoming too tight and too constrictive on the general process of education so that it would end up working against itself.
Lord Skidelsky: I have much sympathy for the intention behind the amendment which of course is to allow some room on the timetable for non-prescribed activities. I believe that that is absolutely right. However, I wonder whether this is the time and place to do so in such a Bill which has statutory force. I also wonder whether there is any sufficiently thought-out virtue as regards the figure of 70 per cent.
I think that we would probably need to make a distinction between the requirements of a primary school curriculum and those of a secondary school. Already, between the ages of 14 and 16, there is 15 per cent. of non-prescribed time. It is possible that we should have different times prescribed in primary and secondary education. In any case, I have no doubt—although I am not privy to the matter—that one of the outcomes of the review will be to suggest such changes. I do not think that we should in any way pre-empt what that review is most likely to advise.
Baroness Blatch: I certainly wish to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. However, I also want to respond to the amendment constructively and in the spirit reflecting the concern that I believe underlies the amendment. It is highly desirable that the national curriculum should not be all embracing and should leave time and space for other activities. The question is how we achieve that and whether something goes on the face of the Bill; for example a specific figure. It is worth saying that some children at the lower end of the ability stream may take a good deal of time on national curriculum subjects both to acquire and consolidate basic skills, while other children at the top end of the ability stream may not need anything like that amount of time to cover national curriculum requirements and can then move on to other activities. It is a matter which must be left to the professionals and to professional judgment.
I should like to echo a point made by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. I believe that it would be inadvisable at this point to pre-empt the work of the review of Sir Ron Dearing. It is almost those kinds of issues that will be addressed by the review. I am grateful in any case to have this opportunity to debate manageability because I know that is very much a current issue. I know there is current concern,about the manageability of the national curriculum. I recognise that the implementation of the national curriculum has imposed great demands on teachers and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their efforts in rising to what has been an incredible challenge. Through their hard work much of the
1088
national curriculum is in place in terms of the subjects being taught, and we can, from their experience of it, turn our attention to ensuring it is as manageable as possible as it comes together as a whole. The time it takes up, which this amendment addresses, is of principal importance in that debate.
This is an important issue but it is also complex. The extent to which the national curriculum is manageable for schools involves an inter-relationship between the time available in schools; how best to use that time; teaching methods, curriculum organisation and school planning; and the tension between teaching required content and developing pupils' depth of understanding.
We are aware of the importance of the issue and we have acted. Scope for slimming down the curriculum is one of the issues which Sir Ron Dearing will be addressing in his review. He will review the overall structure and weight of the national curriculum orders in order to ensure that there is sufficient time in the teaching day to provide a properly balanced curriculum. He will consult with teachers. Only today he met a large number of teachers in the London area and he has already written to 1,000 schools to invite their comments on how these issues might be addressed. The intention is that the review should build on classroom experience.
We have already addressed the manageability of science and maths in the national curriculum. We have offered primary school teachers the advice of the National Curriculum Council and Ofsted on the manageability of the primary curriculum and on teaching methods and curriculum organisation associated with efficient provision. The NCC itself has recently published further guidance to primary schools on curriculum planning at key stage 2.
I cannot accept the amendment as I believe it is restrictive and I believe it pre-empts the work of Sir Ron Dearing and his council. First, as I have said, it would prejudge Sir Ron Dearing's independent review. We want his advice on the issue before moving further.
Secondly, this issue is, as I have shown, rather more complex than simply putting a percentage figure in law. I understand the noble Lord's concern that the national curriculum should be part, rather than the whole, of the curriculum in schools and that the curriculum should not be over-prescriptive. We are addressing these issues through the current review. This is an important issue, but one on which this specific requirement in law would be over-simplistic.
Ofsted found that pupils were, on the whole, well able to tackle the work of the national curriculum. The question is not whether the content of the national curriculum should amount to 70 per cent. or 90 per cent. but rather whether the content is both sufficient to provide children with the knowledge they need as they grow to adulthood and at the same time not so much as to prevent children developing depth of understanding as opposed to superficial learning.
This Government have made changes to streamline the tests for seven year-olds last year and this. As I have said, Sir Ron Dearing's review is looking at ways of ensuring that assessment arrangements remain

1089
manageable for all key stages. It is undesirable—and impractical—to set a limiting time-scale for the process of end of key stage assessments. We recognise that as pupils approach the end of their compulsory schooling and face the choices they will make at 16, the curriculum needs to be flexible enough to allow them to approach these choices confidently while retaining the necessary breadth. We have made important changes to the national curriculum at key stage 4 by removing art and music from the compulsory curriculum, making history and geography alternatives and offering short course options in technology and a modern foreign language. I believe this framework provides optimum choice at an age where I recognise choice and flexibility to be particularly important.
I also agree that there is an important role for subjects outside the national curriculum. It is our aim to see that the demands of the national curriculum continue to allow the study of other subjects, for example, Latin, a second foreign language, home economics and other non-compulsory subjects where schools can offer those subjects as discrete subjects and pupils are keen to study them.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, is in the Chamber. She will remember with great pleasure our visit to St. Bede's School in Cambridge. That school had introduced the most innovative approach not only to teaching the national curriculum but also to introducing non-national curriculum subjects. It was achieving that flexibility with great success even under the present system. The issues that were discussed then have been followed up. I am meeting some of the members of staff of that school to discuss some of the issues that were not resolved on that day. A constant dialogue is going on. There is a constant attempt to address manageability and flexibility without losing rigour. For those reasons, I believe that we are close in terms of our aims with regard to the amendment, but the issue is whether we put something on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Committee will come down on the side of not putting something on the face of the Bill.
Lord Judd: I genuinely thank the Minister for that reply. It will come under close scrutiny in a most positive sense beyond this Chamber. I believe that it indicated positive signals of the opening of the Government's mind as to how this matter should be tackled. That is good news as the review starts. It is always a great privilege to hear sympathetic words from the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, when one is putting forward an argument because there are few of us in the Chamber with as much professional experience as he has to bring into deliberations of this kind. I am sure that we all admire, not for the first time in his political life, his demonstration of how, he is prepared to stand up for what he believes in.
Perhaps I may emphasise two points. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, the purpose of the amendment is not to be rigid but to establish benchmarks for judgment. The wording referred to the fact that:
1090
"the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the National Curriculum occupying not more than 70 per cent.".
That is an indicative expression. But I am sure that the Minister will also agree that we should look at the national curriculum as a whole and that every one of us in this place tonight will take seriously the duty to promote:
"the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society",
and will take seriously the need to prepare,
"such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
I ask the Minister in her deliberations with colleagues and others in the months ahead as the review goes forward to bear in mind that among the less able—as the Minister put it—students there may be a need for more intensive work on what she regards as the core subjects, but the two principles that I have just read out are every bit as important for those less able children, and in some ways arguably more important, in giving them a chance on their own character and ability to participate fully in society. We must not lose sight of that fact.
In view of what the Minister has said, we must recognise that matters are a bit back to front, because the Bill is supposed to be set in the context for decades ahead, and as we are asked to handle the Bill, so a review is starting of a great deal of what will happen within the Bill's parameters. That is not a tidy way to approach the next century. However, that is what is happening, and in view of that, and the fact that we wish the review all possible success, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 138, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) The reference to sex education in section 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (sex education) shall include a reference to any related education given as part of the National Curriculum and accordingly in the said section 46 after the words "sex education" there shall be inserted the words "including any education about sexual matters given as part of the National Curriculum".").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 264 and 265 which relate to sex education. The purpose of Amendment No. 263 is to state clearly and beyond any shadow of doubt in primary legislation that all sex education within a school, including that under the national curriculum, must be done within the moral framework originally set out in Section 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.
Amendment No. 264 establishes a new statutory right for parents to withdraw their children from sex education lessons. Amendment No. 265 puts a new onus on the schools to inform parents in writing about sex education lessons. Although the three amendments form a package designed to strengthen parental involvement in sex education, I stress that each amendment stands in its own right and can be accepted or rejected individually.
There are three aspects to my remarks. First, I wish to remind the Committee of the background to the issue. Secondly I shall comment on the new

1091
Government guidelines. I thank the Minister for sending me the guidelines a week ago. Thirdly, I wish to make a brief comment on each amendment.
Since raising the issue almost a year ago, I have been caricatured in some sections of the press and in correspondence as a religious fanatic, a narrow-minded zealot and someone totally out of touch with the real problems facing children today, especially with the challenge of sexually transmitted diseases including the HIV virus and AIDS. Most of those allegations have come from people who should know better. None the less, as well as being untrue such allegations make no contribution to the debate on this important issue.
I am a fervent believer in the importance of sex education including education about HIV and AIDS. I have never objected to the principle that such education should take place. I am concerned about how it is delivered, how parents are informed about it and the right of some parents to exercise their consciences in withdrawing children from such education. I have no desire to deny children the right to hear important information. I want children to hear it within the appropriate moral and spiritual framework and with the support of parents. Above all else, I look for a partnership between schools and parents on the issue.
I turn to the background of the amendments and to the debate on the subject on 1 1 th June last year. Clause 4 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 gave teachers, parents and governors certain rights regarding sex education in schools. The Act stated that sex education should be given in such a manner as to have regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. In the Act, governors were given the right to decide whether or not sex education should be taught in those schools and, if so, what form such education was to have. In the same Act, parents were given the right, subject to discretion of governors, to withdraw their children from any sex education to which they may object. Almost without exception those arrangements were working fairly satisfactorily until they were suddenly disturbed by the decision to include within the science part of the national curriculum—it is compulsory—education on HIV and AIDS, and other sexual matters. Suddenly education on some controversial issues was not optional but compulsory. At the same time evidence was accumulating that in some schools much was being justified under the broad heading of sex education that was causing deep concern to parents. The noble Baroness must have seen almost as many such examples as I have. The moral framework referred to in the 1986 Act had been abandoned in some lessons. The position was not helped by the department's guide to teachers on HIV/AIDS education which nowhere highlighted the need for a moral framework. We discussed that issue ip last year's debate.
Many of us believe that the Government have acted too quickly in expanding the scope of the science national curriculum without thinking through the consequences of the previous arrangements on sex education. One important example was that the
1092
government circular 11/87 had established the possibility of parents withdrawing their children from sex education lessons following discussions with governors. At a stroke that was removed in relation to some of the most sensitive aspects of sex education relating to the kind of sexual acts which might lead to the transmission of the HIV virus. Confusion reigned. I believe that we made some useful progress in the debate on 11 th June last year when the Minister clearly shared many of the anxieties that noble Lords had expressed. It was encouraging to learn that all sex education, wherever it came in the curriculum, was in the Government's view subject to the moral framework set out in the 1986 Act.
However, on other matters we made no progress. It seems that there was no room in the Government's thinking for some parents being able to exercise their conscience and being allowed to remove their children from certain lessons. We were told in effect that part of the arrangements under the 1986 Act applied to sex education under the science curriculum and part did not. We were told that the Government might consider looking again at circular 11/87 on the matter. Naturally I was disappointed, but I thought that the issue might subside, and that parents might be satisfied by the assurances from the Government. Perhaps we would be forced to accept the rather unsatisfactory position in which we were left. However, I have to say to the Government that the pressure has not gone away at all. It has got worse.
I have received many, many letters since that last debate, right up to this Bill and throughout it, on the issue. Parents and governors remain concerned and confused and I was urged to try to raise the issue again. With the opportunity of this Bill I felt it was right to do so. I was especially aware that when the Bill first appeared we still did not have any proposed new guidelines to replace circular 11/87 and to clear up some of the confusion.
I am encouraged that since my amendments were tabled, the Government have at last been prodded into producing new draft guidelines which the noble Baroness kindly sent me on 22nd April. But are these new guidelines sufficient? I have read them carefully and I must say that there was much that I agreed with and felt encouraged by in the guidelines. The department are to be congratulated for the strong emphasis given in the new draft circular to the moral framework in the context of sex education. The advice on that aspect is, for the most part, clear and helpful. But I do not believe that the guidelines go far enough. My concern is that it is obvious from this new circular that for the 11 to 14 year-olds, who are arguably the most important age group for sex education, virtually all education about sexual matters is now compulsory.
Reading the draft circular opened my eyes again to the fact that the science order is not just about AIDS, the HIV virus and sexually transmitted diseases—it goes wider. It is about education on a whole range of sexual matters, if we study the new circular. That is why I decided to change the wording of Amendment No. 263, to ensure that it covered all education about sexual matters under the national curriculum. That means that the governors' role, for instance, in

1093
relation to sex education for that group would become much more than just cosmetic, as it would under the provisions of the new circular.
Furthermore, the new guidelines do not even mention the possibility that pupils might be withdrawn from sex education lessons. I should have thought that at the very least the opportunity might have remained for lessons outside the national curriculum. But no, all references to the possibility of withdrawal have been removed and the discretionary right in a previous circular 11/87 no longer exists. In my view, that is a major gap in the guidelines, not least because some parents will request the withdrawal of their child and no advice is given to teachers and governors as to how to respond.
The guidelines duck the issue of parents being given an opportunity to exercise their conscience. The draft circular also includes many worthy words about consultation with parents. But my fear, based on a long experience of these voluntary arrangements, is that with the change to much sex education becoming compulsory, there is a danger of less rather than more consultation taking place. That is why one of my amendments addresses the issue of ensuring that parents are informed.
I should now like to turn briefly to the amendments themselves. I apologise for having taken so long to set the context, but I believe that it is an important issue and the Committee needs to be aware of the background. Amendment No. 263 would ensure that any education about sexual matters within the national curriculum is subject to the requirement of Section 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. That is:
"to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
I am aware that the noble Baroness said last June that that requirement applied. I have since had it repeated to me in a letter dated 20th March from the Prime Minister to whom I had previously written. We now have the same statement in the new guidelines. I feel, however, that this is such an important matter that we should have it stated in an Act of Parliament. Some people might think that that is being pedantic, but I simply point out that not all the provisions on sex in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 apply to education within the national curriculum. For example, the requirements of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, which give governors the option of not having sex education, clearly do not apply and have been overridden by requirements of the national curriculum. In effect, in my view the proposed guidelines represent a backward step rather than an improvement.
I therefore believe that this simple amendment establishes a very important principle. Since the Government and the noble Baroness, 4 the Government's spokesman in this Chamber, and the Prime Minister (in correspondence to me) all accept the sense of the amendment and the fact that the moral framework should exist, why do they not accept the amendment and save a lot of trouble? If they all agree, why will they not say it in writing on the face of the
1094
Bill? Why just leave it in guidelines which nobody might read or which may be totally missed? It ought to be in the Bill.
This amendment therefore seeks to establish that important principle; namely, that parents have a key role in the provision of sex education for their children. Amendment No. 264 introduces a new subsection to make sure that that happens.
Many parents would consider education on sexual matters an important part of their religious and moral views, and would see an equivalent between this new right and the existing statutory right of withdrawal from religious education. That will not be denied by people who understand how they think. While Amendment No. 264 creates an opportunity, I do not anticipate that many parents will seek to exercise it. I am essentially creating a backstop provision. Most parents are happy that their children should learn about aspects of sex education at school.
The right that I propose is most likely to be exercised in two circumstances: first, by the few parents who would prefer that all education on sexual matters should be provided within the home—that includes members of some religious groups such as the Brethren, who have campaigned so assiduously on this matter both inside and outside the House; secondly, the right might be exercised in circumstances where parents are unhappy about the kind of sex education being given and feel that the only option left following discussion with the school is to seek to have their children excused.
The Government may say that the new guidelines will ensure that such irresponsible sex education could never be given. My answer must be: "You can never say never". The evidence is that even with the 1986 Act emphasising the importance of a moral framework, many sex education lessons have been given which flouted that requirement and some right of conscience is necessary for parents. I believe that only the most concerned and responsible parents will seek to exercise that right, and they should be given it.
I am conscious, too, that the major argument which the Minister is about to trot out against the amendment is that it will create an undesirable precedent for opting out of a compulsory curriculum. I have to say that I am not impressed by arguments based on the idea of precedent. I think it is the favourite argument of civil servants and others to prevent something happening which has merit in its own right but which makes life a little awkward for them. A lot of people come into that category. I think that most people would accept that sex education necessarily trespasses into the area of personal morality and therefore of personal conscience. I seek to create a right of withdrawal by an amendment to an Act of Parliament. This is not some secondary piece of legislation or a Private Member's Bill that goes through unnoticed and gets forgotten about. This is a right in a primary piece of legislation. I suggest that it is important enough to be included; and that any other case proposing a right of withdrawal of pupils from the compulsory national curriculum would similarly have to be achieved through primary legislation. I totally accept that. Each case should be

1095
considered on its merits. I cannot envisage any other case that this Chamber or the other place would accept. I therefore suggest that this proposal should be considered on the grounds of whether it is sensible rather than whether it creates a precedent.
Finally, I turn to my Amendment No. 265, which puts a new responsibility on governing bodies to ensure that head teachers have established agreements whereby all parents of pupils in school will receive written notice seven days in advance of any sex education. The amendment goes to the heart of my view that sex education will be truly successful only if it results from a partnership between the school and parents. I want to encourage parents to take greater interest in the sex education of their children. I am a school governor, and I am afraid that with the best will in the world, whatever heady words are included in the new government guidelines about consultation with parents, as years go by it is easy for parents to become less and less involved in issues like this.
A discussion may take place at one stage, some materials may be looked at and a few lines included in the school prospectus or report to the annual meeting. But I do not believe that those actions are sufficient properly to inform parents. I want parents to know about sex education before the event so that they have the opportunity to discuss the matter with their children, and in the few cases where they have some worry about the approach that the school is taking, to talk it over with the school and with the head.
Surely the principle of involving parents and informing them ought not to be coming from me. I should have thought that it is entirely in line with the
1096
Government's stated philosophy, through charters, citizens' rights, parents' rights and the involvement of parents. It ought not to be me who is saying this. I ought to be listening to it. But I have to say it because in this particular case it is necessary.
I suppose that it could be argued that such a procedure would be too bureaucratic. I do not believe that it would, simply because schools already regularly send home a lot of information to parents about events happening in school or within the curriculum. The child quite frequently brings home a note asking permission to go on a school trip or take part in a sports event. Schools do not find it difficult to deal with such matters. Surely, in relation to such an important issue as sex education (which I would say is even more important than sports events or the next school fair) it would be simple enough to establish a new arrangement to ensure that parents were informed. At the beginning of term a single note setting out the proposals for sex education and the timing of lessons would suffice.
I apologise again to the Committee for taking so long to explain in detail the background to the amendments, but they are of crucial importance to many people. I also wanted to ensure that no one was in any doubt that the purpose of the amendments was not to sideline sex education but to increase its importance. It was to increase the involvement of parents while ensuring that those parents who have a genuine anxiety may be able to withdraw their children at an appropriate time. I urge the Committee to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox: I strongly support the amendments so comprehensively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. In doing so, I should like to preface my brief contribution by emphasising that as a nurse I am intensely aware of the importance of educating young people about the significance of sexual activity, not only as it relates to moral and family values, but also as it relates to health and the risks of disease. The advent of AIDS has highlighted the need for health education to ensure that no young person is exposed unwittingly to risks.
I must also emphasise that here, as in so many aspects of educational policy, the need for legislation has been prompted by some unfortunate practices which have led to great disquiet among parents and the public. Therefore, while in an ideal world the advice given in the guidelines to which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred might be sufficient to ensure good and acceptable practice in the classroom, some incidents in schools have given rise to widespread anxiety, making it desirable for the safeguards proposed in these amendments to appear in statute on the face of the Bill.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in welcoming the recommendations in the guidelines produced by the DFE, especially the recommendation that matters pertaining to sex education should be taught in ways that take account of moral values and have regard for the values of family life. I also welcome the advice that schools should respect the needs and sensitivities of parents from certain religious and ethnic groups who may not be comfortable with public discussion of these complex and sensitive issues.
But there have been some serious disjunctions between the good policies recommended and the realities of life in the classroom. For example, there have been cases where offence has been caused by ways in which sex education has been taught. I think in particular of the Malachi Stone case in Gloucestershire as an example which has received publicity. In that instance a lesson was given by someone from Gloucestershire Royal Hospital's AIDS Department who began the class by writing on the blackboard words which I shall not repeat to the Committee unless requested. She then reportedly told the 16 year-olds about "fun" condoms, dispensed a supply of condoms, including mint flavoured varieties which a pupil was encouraged to taste, and divided the class into pairs so that they could practise putting condoms on each other's fingers. Prima facie, that might seem to be rather fun. It is perhaps a rather more fun way of promoting sex education than happened when I was at school. Apparently the whole lesson contained no reference whatever to any moral issues or to the value of practising sex within marriage. It appeared to promote sex as fun, to be practised on the basis of safety conferred by the use of condoms—an approach referred to as a "condom-based morality". In that context it actually ceases to be funny.
When one of the pupils and his parents complained, their complaint was dismissed because it was claimed
1098
that the lesson formed part of a series in which moral matters were addressed. But the overwhelming message of that lesson, as it appeared to the pupil, was an encouragement to promiscuity.
It was in response to similar concerns over amoral teaching of sex education and the associated explicit promotion of positive images of homosexuality that the 1986 Act provided for sex education to be made directly accountable to parents through the school's governing body. The Committee may remember that some of the examples of teaching materials used and recommended at the time of those debates were so extreme that they caused widespread offence; for example, the book, Jenny lives with Eric and Martin, which showed photographs of an eight-year old girl with her father and male lover in bed; or the book, The Milkman's on His Way, with explicit detailed accounts of sexual intercourse between a young man and his teenage boy lover—a book actually recommended by the ILEA.
It was that kind of teaching which the 1986 Act tried to circumvent by the provisions placing sex education under the control of governing bodies. But now, as the noble Lord pointed out, matters related to sex education can be addressed elsewhere in the curriculum, particularly under the aegis of AIDS education and especially in the science curriculum. That opens the possibility for a recurrence of similar teaching in other guises. Presumably many of the staff in post are still the same as those who were there a few years ago. Therefore to have provisions designed to prevent that kind of amoral, anti-family teaching limited to guidelines may be an inadequate safeguard and, surely, it is desirable to have them on the face of the Bill.
It is also desirable to build in the protection afforded by Amendments Nos. 264 and 265, although I would wish to make one stipulation. As I have said, I believe that it is essential that children are protected by health education so that they are aware of the dangers of promiscuity and of the risks of behaviour which exposes them to disease. There is a risk that if sex and health education, which should give them that necessary awareness, are left to parents who withdraw them from relevant lessons, those parents may not give them appropriate information. I should therefore like to see some guidance given to parents to ensure that they do educate their children appropriately in these sensitive, complex matters, which could be a matter of life and death for their children.
In conclusion, I believe that these amendments are extremely important, relating to issues of deep concern to parents of different religious faiths and of no faith, but who care deeply about moral concerns and the value of family life. Given the unfortunate experience of recent years, in which many parents have been deeply offended by some examples of ways in which sex and health education, especially relating to AIDS, have been addressed in some schools, I hope that my noble friend will look favourably on the amendment which proposes to put on the face of the Bill provisions currently recognised as desirable in the draft circular, and at the amendments designed to give

1099
parents rights to protect their children from what they regard as exposure to morally unacceptable educational experiences.
The Earl of Halsbury: I join with my noble friends in supporting these three amendments. The natural curiosity of the pubertal young will ensure that any sex education given in the classroom will circulate, uncensored, in the playground, where it will get mixed up with other sources of information, possibly much less desirable. We have all been pubertal youngsters at some time in our lives, and we know what curiosity is.
I want to paint a scenario where two parents—mother and father—ask to meet the person designated as responsible for their child's education. I suppose, for the purposes of the scenario, that they take an instant dislike to him or her and decide to overcome their embarrassment and embark on their child's sex education in the home, so as to immunise their child against the exposition that they attribute to the individual they distrust, justly or unjustly, rightly or wrongly, and which will circulate among other children as I have described. Are they to be denied this right? It is no use preaching that the family is the natural unit of a healthy society and then doing something calculated to undermine it. Sex is a delicate and sensitive subject. It is important that the family and the school should be pulling together in the same direction. When this is judged unlikely to be the case, is the family, represented by the parents, to have no rights at all? I say that it should.
I have just received a joint brief from two bodies called the National AIDS Trust and the Sex Education Forum. I extract from it, with respect to Amendment No. 263, comments which they say makes it unworkable. I quote:
"Aspects of sex education are now part of science".
No, not all aspects. Sexual ethics are not part of science. The legal standing of minors and the protection given to people under age from molestation by their elders are not part of science. Sexual hygiene is part of medical science, but the current overemphasis on AIDS as the only affliction from which we suffer is being over done. There should be more reference to those historical diseases—syphilis, gonorrhea, genital herpes; in short, the pox—as part of the instruction in personal hygiene. The needle, not normal sex, is a major source of AIDS. Protection from that is part of personal hygiene and citizenship.
These amendments respect the rights of the family to go its own way, according to its own judgment. I join in moving them accordingly. If the noble Lord who heads the list, when he has listened to the noble Baroness's reply, chooses to divide the Committee, I shall follow him into the Division Lobby; otherwise, I shall respect his judgment.
Lord Kilmarnock: In introducing the amendments the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to the new draft circular issued by Mr. Forth, the junior Minister in charge of schools, which a number of us interested in this field have seen. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, brought the circular into the debate. I am not at all sure that this is the appropriate moment to discuss and, in effect, vote on a draft circular which has just
1100
been issued. Although the Government's record on consultation has not been brilliant up to now, on this occasion they have given a perfectly reasonable deadline of mid-July for comments. I should have thought that the noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have tabled the amendments would have wished to take part in that process to which they have been invited by the Government.
The technical aspects of the amendments have been explained very lucidly by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, so I shall not go into that in any detail. In effect, he requires, in Amendment No. 263, that any sex education given in the course of the national curriculum shall be subject to the same requirements as sex education in general; namely, that it be given in such a manner as to encourage people to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life, which is the basic requirement in Section 46 of the 1986 Act. But there are already hefty safeguards for this. That requirement is not only embedded in the 1986 Act in regard to sex education. On top of that there is the general requirement in Section 1(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988, which is stressed by Mr. Forth in his letter to me which I have in my hand, that the whole curriculum in maintained schools,
"(a) promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school",
already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, earlier,
"and of society; and
(b) prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
So the spiritual, moral and cultural requirements permeate the entire 1988 Act.
Furthermore, Curricular Guidance 5 on health education restates the Section 46 requirement to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life yet again, while key stage 3, attainment target 2, refers also to the need to have a responsible attitude towards sexual behaviour. I would have thought that any remaining doubts were addressed in the new draft circular.
I do not want to go into this in any detail because I do not believe that this is the appropriate place to debate it, in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was suggesting that curricular questions should be deferred for the consultation which is going on in the National Curriculum Council. In the same way, this is not the appropriate forum in which to debate this circular in detail.
But I was amazed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, say that he thought it was a backward step. It seems to me to contain some quite draconian measures. I am sure that he has read with care Sections 3, 17, 24 and 27 which I am sure would have given to him and his noble friend a great deal of satisfaction.
There is one important point to make here from the outset. It may seem to be innocuous simply to repeat existing requirements. There is a sting in the tail to Amendment No. 263 which paves the way for Amendment No. 264. That amendment provides that a pupil may be excused entirely from receiving sex education. The twist here is that the definition of sex education, which is non-mandatory, has been extended by Amendment No. 263 to include,

1101
"any education about sexual matters given as part of the National Curriculum".
If this amendment is passed it could mean that a child may be excused part of a foundation subject of the national curriculum. It is therefore a back-door attack on a curriculum subject. There may be arguments for slimming down the national curriculum. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, ably advanced them, but I do not believe that they have been advanced by anyone as regards the inner core of maths, English and science. It certainly should not be done on a sidewind in an amendment on sex education.
As far as I know, there is no recent research which shows a request for withdrawal from sex education. The very large majority (95 per cent.) of parents want sex education in schools. This is obviously a matter which should be handled sensitively with parents. In fact, that is mentioned in the new draft circular. For example, Moslem parents might not want girls and boys to be taught sex education together. That is something which can be tackled at school level.
There is no evidence that early awareness leads to a life of more partners and greater promiscuity. In fact, the evidence goes the other way. I have been asked to say on behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool—one of the younger Members of your Lordships' House, with a young family—that he strongly supports that position; namely, that there is not any evidence that early awareness at an appropriate stage in education leads to any more permissive behaviour.
The final point is this. I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Halsbury who used the word "unworkable" in relation to one of the amendments. Certainly, Amendment No. 265 is simply unworkable. If sex education is taught on a cross-curricular basis, as recommended by the National Curriculum Council, it would be quite unrealistic to inform parents seven days in advance of each occasion on which some aspect of sex education might or might not crop up. Even if that could be worked out in advance it would impose the most unwelcome additional administrative burden on schools which could lead to a nightmare of bureaucracy. I am surprised that it has been advanced as a serious proposition at all.
Nobody doubts the great and abiding concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, about this matter. Indeed, he got the AIDS control legislation through this House. No one doubts his motivation. That has to be respected, but I must submit that this is not the right way to go about it. With a new circular freshly minted from the DFE before us and with an opportunity for all of us to comment by mid-July, this is not the moment to pass these amendments.
The Duke of Norfolk: I should like unequivocally to support the amendment moved by the noble. Lord, Lord Stallard. All three amendments are perfectly workable. I cannot agree with the previous speaker at all; I think that the last amendment will work perfectly well. I have received many letters on this subject, and I give the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, every possible support.
Lord Addington: I should like to encourage the Committee to reject the amendments for one very simple reason. They are a restriction on information and in this field information is the key. Nobody has ever convinced me that if one tells somebody that some sort of activity is dangerous, it encourages them to do it. We are not just talking about HIV and AIDS, which is an undercurrent that should not be ignored - indeed, it cannot be ignored - but also about unwanted pregnancies among the very young. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that he thought that sex education would become jumbled up with schoolyard chatter. It has been my experience that if people are given accurate information, they do not listen to inaccurate information with anywhere near the same ready ear. I am afraid that we have to accept that one man's moral code is another man's draconian measure.
When it comes to considering what is the correct action, the Government Front Bench have proved to myself and to many other noble Lords that they are quite capable of making up their own minds and fighting their own corner. Indeed, that has been proved to us several times today. I suggest that the Government stick to their guns. AIDS has not spread quite as fast as many had feared and I think that the Government deserve a considerable amount of credit for the fact that they tackled the problem with information early and accurately and let people know what was going on. They have also borne in mind the fact that in our society sexuality has become part of our art form, literature and what is on television. We cannot avoid the fact that there is a certain amount of such information around. In my opinion, half-information is bad information. If we give people accurate information, they will be able to make their own judgments.
To those who are worried about moral guidance being subverted from our homes, I suggest that if parents who have so much more control over and opportunity to influence their children cannot convince them that the moral code that they are giving them is the correct one, no amount of information provided from other sources stands any realistic chance of having any great effect. That is the case. The first requirement for converting people to another point of view is that they are dissatisfied with the one that they already have. Bearing that in mind, I recommend that the Government and the Committee resist the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could explain to the Committee on the subject of information how it is that, despite the amount of information that has been given out about smoking and the fact that everybody knows that it is bad for you, so many youngsters try smoking.
Lord Addington: If the noble Lord wants to go off the subject of the amendment for a short while, the answer to his question is that I am not sure but at least they know that it is bad for them. We are not telling young people to stop having sex for all time; we are just telling them to take the correct precautions.
Baroness Elles: On the question of information, surely the fact is that when children are informed and learn at school, they imbibe knowledge for the future. But information on the kind of sex education that is being given in schools today is not just information; it encourages them to act on it. It affects their moral outlook, their moral behaviour and their conduct in general. It is not just information. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and my noble friend Lady Cox and we know exactly the kind of thing that is being taught in schools under the heading "sex education". It is not just information; it is an encouragement to promiscuity.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly said that one man's moral code is another man's piece of rubbish, so to speak. But some people believe that there is a moral code which children should be brought up to observe. If they are taught the kind of sex education of which we are being given examples, that will undermine and deny the moral code in which some of us—perhaps we should call ourselves a minority—certainly Christians and many leading religions in this country, believe. The provisions in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, should be supported by the Committee.
We do not want to see obligatory teaching of such matters within the national curriculum. If parents want their children to receive sex education such as that being taught in schools it is up to the them to choose it. I am a grandmother and I am sure that there are parents and grandparents in the Committee who have managed to live a perfectly normal life without such sex education. I am sure, too, that others do not want their grandchildren and children to receive that information which is being given in schools. It is the kind of literature which 20 years ago would have been considered obscene and pornographic but it is now taken for granted. I strongly support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel strongly supported by a majority of the Committee in taking the line proposed in the amendments.
The Earl of Perth: I support the amendments. In my judgment they all hang together, although it may be necessary to change some of the words in one of them. I give the Government full credit for wanting to tackle the matter in the most sympathetic and earnest way. However, a more general consideration is embodied in the three amendments to which we should give serious thought. While sex education is essential today, and while it must be directed at disease and abuse, it is wrong that it should be the main responsibility of the Government as opposed to the parents.
Many parents may not wish to have the responsibility of so informing their children. That is fine but what do the amendments lay down? They lay down that the parents should be informed that that is what the school will teach. Then they provide that the parents shall have an opportunity in writing—and I stress "in writing"—of refusing and requesting that they do so themselves. That is where I believe there could be a slight change in the wording. The right
1104
people to undertake this most delicate task—I almost say "sacred" task—are the parents in the first instance, if they so wish.
Amendment No 264 goes on to provide:
"until the request is withdrawn".
I understand that the Government wish to be satisfied that the child has been properly educated. Indeed, in saying to the parents, "We leave it to you", they must write stating specifically what must be covered. I recognise that there is a duty on the Government and on the parents. However, if the parents wish to undertake the task, and if they take the trouble to write, they are shown to be responsible people who should be encouraged. Let them do that.
We have all heard a great deal recently about the people's charter and how, under that charter, the people are to be given certain rights and the Government will intervene only as a last resort. I beg the Minister and the Government to recognise that the effect of the amendments is precisely to have the Government leave the matter to the people, except to ensure that something is done in relation to sex education. I very hope much that, if the Government cannot accept the amendments as they stand, they will at least give an undertaking that they will look at them again and accept them in principle.
11 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: I rise to oppose the amendments. I oppose them because I support most strongly the proposition that education about HIV and AIDS should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum.
In doing that, I declare two interests. First, I am chairman of Crusaid, the national fund raising charity which cares for men, women and children affected by HIV and AIDS. I spend a good deal of my time trying to alleviate the hardship, misery and despair which are the results of HIV infection and AIDS.
Secondly, as a parent I am concerned that my children should live in a society in which everyone is fully informed as to the character and dangers of that invariably fatal infection.
Awareness of and concern for the dangers of HIV and AIDS have been seriously undermined in the past week by irresponsible interpretations of the announcements by the Secretary of State for Health concerning changes to the structure of HIV and AIDS funding. For example, irresponsible reporting has suggested that HIV is a threat only to minority groups and that the fact that the epidemic has not reached the levels that were feared eight years ago somehow proves that the problem can be downgraded and that the need for universal education has passed or, perhaps, never existed at all.
We have heard some suggestions of such arguments this evening. I wish to make four brief points. First, HIV infection kills. It kills with certainty and it kills the young. Those characteristics distinguish the virus from almost all other viruses prevalent in the British population. Fortunately HIV infection is also preventable.
Secondly, as to the spread of the disease into the heterosexual population, I can but quote the figures

1105
given by Dr. Robert Kendell, Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, in a speech delivered in Edinburgh last Tuesday, a speech which I heard. Dr. Kendell pointed out that there was a confusion in the reporting of Mrs. Bottomley's speech between the proportion of heterosexual infections in the total of infections so far recorded and the number of new infections which can be attributed to heterosexual activity.
Dr. Kendell reported that if we focus on new infections, the proportion of new infections in the Lothian region arising from heterosexual activity was in the past year 42 per cent. I have obtained similar figures for England, Wales and Northern Ireland from the Public Health Laboratory Service. Excluding all infections associated with drug use, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in 1985 2 per cent. of all new infections were heterosexual. For 1992, the figure is 28 per cent. Therefore, the idea that HIV infection is confined to homosexuals and drug users is simply and dangerously wrong.
Thirdly, as Mrs. Bottomley pointed out, the level of HIV infection in Britain is about 20,000 known cases. To some degree that is a measure of the success of the AIDS awareness campaign. It is folly to lower our guard now. That is to invite the growth of the infection which has been limited up to now.
Let us also remember that in other European countries in which campaigning has been less widespread and less well funded and where educational efforts have been less thorough, the HIV infection is much higher—there being about 120,000 reported infections in France, 120,000 in Italy and 100,000 in Spain. Not only do those figures suggest that the British campaign has been important; they also emphasise the need for the education of our children, for in which countries do so many of our children spend their holidays?
Finally, HIV infection is a social issue, not a family issue. It is not something which can be left to the responsibility of individual parents, since one family's decision—for example, not to educate its children in the dangers of HIV infection—may have severe, indeed fatal, implications for other families. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who suggested that those families who wished to withdraw their children from sex education may be those who are most responsible: they may well be those who are most frightened and ignorant. Ignorance can be truly fatal. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so accurately stated, that is why it is society's responsibility to ensure that no one is ignorant.
On those grounds, it is essential that all children in the 11 to 14 age group should be educated in the facts about HIV and AIDS, about the transmission of the disease and about the steps which may be taken to prevent transmission. It is not an attack on family life; it is a defence of life itself. It would be thoroughly irresponsible for us not to educate all our children in those facts. I urge the Government to reject the amendment.
Lord Renton: I listened to the noble Lord with great interest and attention, but, before he sits down, I
1106
wonder whether he can explain how it is that since sex education in this country became the norm, teenage pregnancies and one-parent families have become so much more frequent.
Lord Eatwell: The noble Lord would have to look to a wide variety of changes in society and not just identify the characteristics of education as being the only key. After all, if he studies other European countries where sex education is less thorough than it is in this country, he will find that the rise in teenage pregnancies follows a similar pattern.
Lord Ashbourne: I welcome the amendments which reflect some important points of principle. They do not suggest in any way that sex education or education about AIDS and HIV is unimportant; on the contrary, such education is important and the amendments do not destruct the statutory responsibility to provide teaching within the national curriculum about AIDS and HIV.
The amendments are designed to give parents an increased role in the area and to ensure that they are aware of what is going on at school. They would facilitate further discussion between parents and teachers about those important matters. It is unlikely that many parents would seek to exercise the opportunity to withdraw their children from such lessons, but it is important that such provision is available.
Members of the Committee will be aware that, in some cases, we are talking about young and impressionable children. The amendments would help to ensure that such matters were dealt with sensitively. I understand that the new draft guidelines from the department do not allow governors discretion to withdraw a child from sex education at the parents' request. Therefore, the amendments are now more crucial than ever.
Having said that, I believe that the real answer for dealing with AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases is for the Government to take their courage in both hands and tell citizens that, if they want to avoid those diseases, they should be chaste before marriage and faithful within it. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I wish to oppose these amendments and—it may perhaps surprise the Committee—urge the Government to stick by their guns as regards these amendments. Other speakers have mentioned that. Recently I spoke on the same platform as Mr. Forth when the draft circular was introduced at a conference held last Saturday organised jointly by the Wellcome Trust, the Association for Science Education and the BMA. That conference was organised to consider the terms of the new draft and the way forward on sex education in general in this country.
The conference was designed for and aimed at teachers. None of the people in that conference room bore any relation to any of the caricatures—I must say they have been caricatures—of the people who provide the type of teaching which has been described here tonight. They comprised a group of responsible

1107
people who were concerned for the welfare of their pupils. I was delighted to join with Mr Forth in talking about the partnership which was needed between the professionals in that room and parents. As has also been mentioned here tonight, over 90 per cent. of parents in this country would like to see sex education conducted in schools.
I wish to mention the National Aids Trust which has been mentioned in a somewhat pejorative fashion tonight. In my experience as director of that trust I have worked with young people in schools throughout this country on a project entitled Living for Tomorrow. That project asked young people what they themselves thought about the sex education which they received in schools. Of course some of that specifically referred to HIV and AIDS and on those points I shall not repeat what my noble friend Lord Eatwell has already said with which I absolutely concur.
These young people were being asked whether they were satisfied with the type of sex education which they had received during their progress through school. Most of them said they were not satisfied. Most of them felt they had simply been given information and that they had not been allowed to discuss matters in broad terms. That matter has been mentioned tonight. There is no question but that a proper sexual health education includes discussion of relationships and of all the matters contained in the draft circular. I hope those matters will be appropriately interpreted when the circular comes into force.
But I have to say that the real underlying message from these young people was the sex education they were receiving was too little and too late. It was too late because although it may be somewhat disconcerting for the adult population, we know that 31 per cent. of young people today have already had sexual experience, more than half of them by the time they are 19. Before Members of the Committee who support these amendments say, "Ah ha, that just shows what we have been saying is true and that sex education encourages promiscuity", one must consider the position in some other countries. I would mention in this connection the question the noble Lord, Lord Renton, put to my noble friend Lord Eatwell. We need to look specifically at the experience of the Netherlands. In Holland, against a background that I think most Members of the Committee would regard as rather liberal in its sexual mores, a detailed, open sexual health education starts in primary school. That country has the lowest rate of teenage pregnancy in the industrial world. That compares favourably with our poor record in this country of the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe. The conclusions that can be drawn from that are obvious.
As my noble friend Lord Eatwell said in replyto the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if one looks at the comparative statistics on HIV and AIDS and at comparative sex education programmes, one finds that those countries in Europe which have had restrictive, inhibited sexual health programmes in schools have the higher rates of HIV and AIDS. As
1108
several speakers in the debate tonight have already said, we have a proud record in that context on which we should support the Government.
I have a further matter to mention in supporting my noble friends who have spoken against these amendments. We have to acknowledge that in this country today many young people have a sense of autonomy. They have a sense of their own understanding of what they want. Members of the Committee may regret some of the cases which have come before the courts where people who may be considered young children have asked for divorce from their foster parents or whatever it may be. It is frankly inappropriate in this day and age for us to assume that parents always know either what their children are doing or indeed what they want to do. In that instance it is inappropriate to say that parents can withdraw their children when that may be against those children's expressed wishes and needs.
I shall cite just one short example. When I was director of the National Aids Trust the head teacher of a London school asked me to talk to a group of girls who were doing a project on HIV and AIDS. I said that I would of course do so. The girls came to see me. Three of the girls were Moslems. Three of the girls explained to me privately that they had difficulty talking about those issues at home; but none the less they wished to be informed. They thought that it was their responsibility and choice that they should be so informed. I felt that it was worthy of them as young adults that they should make choices about themselves and their own lives. Today we cannot assume that parents know best.
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: I am aware of the lateness of the hour, and I do not wish to detain the Committee long. I hope that I can support the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, with the same admirable brevity as my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. I have enjoyed an alliance with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. When he described the background, he talked about the first debate on the subject being on 11th June. However, we did have a Starred Question in my name on 5th March. He was kind enough to support me on that occasion. I supported him on 11th June, and I support him again tonight. I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider the amendments carefully.
I have had a great many letters of support for the amendment. One was from Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice which is under the patronage of Our Lady of Walsingham. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister recalls that about five years ago there was an interdenominational all-party pilgrimage to Our Lady of Walsingham which I attended with her. We enjoyed that occasion. She now sits in an exalted position on the Front Bench while I am still on the Back Benches. I do not know what that tells me, but I hope that she will see whether she can have some sympathy with the amendments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I have just had the unfortunate experience of catching the eye of—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: This side.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am so sorry.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the three amendments so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Stallard. I hope sincerely that the Minister will feel able to support and, indeed, accept them. It is a great pity that she was unable to accept the amendments moved by my noble friend last June. That would have saved us a great deal of trouble tonight.
It is amazing that we have to try to instruct a Conservative Government in family views and to instruct not merely the Government but even some of my noble friends that the family still counts. There seems to be an idea abroad that parents should no longer be involved in decisions as to what their children should or should not be taught. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that in this country it is still the responsibility of parents properly to bring up their children with a due moral sense, and in the last analysis it is their responsibility to see that they are educated properly. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of the views expressed by my noble friends and so many of her noble friends.
Let us not forget that my noble friend is not suggesting that there should be no sex education in schools; he is suggesting that parents should be involved in the type of sex education that is taught in schools. I should have thought that that was entirely reasonable.
We have been brought to this pass by the frightening claims made about AIDS and HIV over a long period of time. We have been told that there was to be a great epidemic. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Jay suggested that we might be on the brink of a black death. I have not heard people shouting, "Bring out your dead" yet. Those extravagant claims have been made. But now the Government have admitted—although some people do not apparently like the admission—that the long prophesied HIV and AIDS epidemic has not materialised in the way that was predicted. For example, Sir Donald Acheson, the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health, warned in 1990 that AIDS was spreading so rapidly among heterosexuals that anyone who had unprotected sex with a stranger should undergo an AIDS test. In the past 10 years there have been 5,000 deaths from AIDS but 150,000 deaths a year from cancer. That is the epidemic proportion about which we speak.
The number of deaths over the past 10 years has been 5,000, despite the fact that £880 million has been spent on the fight against AIDS in five years. That is as much as has been allocated to fighting cancer which kills 150,000 people a year. Indeed, five times as much is being spent on each AIDS case as on each mental patient and eight times as much as sufferers from terminal heart disease. It seems to me that we have been taken for a ride not only in relation to education but to public expenditure, too.
Baroness Elles: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, perhaps he will confirm that of the 5,000 regrettable deaths over the past 10 years only 62 involved heterosexuals.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, indeed. Those are the figures that I have.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Following that intervention, perhaps I may make two points. They may not necessarily be relevant to the conference, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord will direct me to the quotation in which I said that AIDS was equivalent to the black death.
Surely the point was made by my noble friend Lord Eatwell. Whatever the number of deaths, 28 per cent. of the current infections—I am sure that I do not need to explain to the Committee the difference between HIV infection and death from AIDS—are in the heterosexual community.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Those are figures brought out tonight. The meeting was only a week ago. Those figures have not surfaced yet. Bearing in mind some of the propaganda which has been spread about this disease, we need to examine those figures very carefully indeed. The noble Baroness asked for the quotation. It was from the Sunday Telegraph on 9th May. I shall read the article to her in full. It refers to Margaret Jay, former head of the National AIDS Trust, who stated in May 1989:
"I was one of the first TV programme makers here to treat AIDS as a mainstream political issue. There was no public awareness that if we did not act, we could be on the brink of a 21st-century black death".
That is the quotation. If the noble Baroness disagrees with it, I am quite sure she will get in touch with the Sunday Telegraph to deny it. That is the quotation and I have no alternative but to believe it at this time.
In the schools, as we have heard, children are being taught a variety of information about the AIDS virus, how it spreads and the AIDS epidemic. I have one educational guide here which says:
"It is thought that about one in 10 people are homosexual or 'gay'".
That is a downright lie, according to Dr Patrick Dixon, who is somewhat of an expert in these matters. He said at a meeting last month:
"One reason for revising estimates of HIV spread downwards in [the United Kingdom] is that the number of sexually active gay men has turned out to be much smaller than suggested by many—less than 21% [of the male population]".
So we find that children in our schools are being taught that one in 10 males are homosexual and yet we have a medical expert saying that the number of homosexuals is less than 2 per cent. If we are to teach people about these matters in school, let us teach them the truth.
The fact is that there are many people worrying about the form that AIDS education and sex education generally takes in our schools. All my noble friend and I call for is to get parents involved in sex education and for them to have power over those who administer sex education in the schools, to the extent that if they are not satisfied, they may withdraw their children from the classes. I sincerely hope that the Committee will support the amendments if they are put to a vote.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for attempting to speak before he did, as his name is on the amendment and it was the turn of his side to speak.
I wish to put the Committee at ease because I have now had the unpleasant experience of having my eye caught by my noble friend the Chief Whip no fewer than three times. I am sure he is right when he indicates through his glance that the sense of the Committee is that perhaps it is time to draw the debate to a conclusion. I shall therefore not trouble the Committee with some quite interesting and depressing examples from normal teaching manuals of sex education to children in primary schools. I feel that had I had the time to use them, they would have strengthened the case for the amendments which I wish to support. However, maybe I shall have the opportunity of doing that at a later stage in the Bill when I hope more time will allow it.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I feel that a debate on this subject would be incomplete if I did not attempt to say a word from these Benches. So knowing that the Chief Whip quite rightly wants us to get on, perhaps I may briefly say that I listened with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who introduced the subject with great sensitivity and care. I fully respect that.
At the end of the day, I have to say that I cannot go along with the amendments and want to make one or two brief comments in that connection. I think that always when sex education is given, or when it is given in connection with HIV and AIDS, it must be given in a moral context. Not only that, but it is important that sexuality should be recognised as an enormous and great gift. It is part of our responsibility to use it in order to create and sustain fulfilling personal relationships. Unless it is seen in that context, we shall be leading people astray. That is important and needs continually to be underlined.
That leads me to say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that I do not for one moment stand by or attempt to defend some of the stories which she told about how sex education was given. It is important that teachers should be given considerable help and training. I do not think that just by their natural instincts or as a result of their training as teachers, they can handle such sensitive, delicate and complex issues.
Thirdly, I believe that we need to inject a sense of realism into the debate. We must—I return the Committee to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—bear in mind the playground. Whatever may happen in the classroom, children learn the wrong things in the playground. It is no good trying to ignore that or thinking that by withdrawing people from classrooms one can keep them isolated and insulated from what is going on within their peer group. We have to be realistic and recognise that that is going on, as we also have to be realistic in recognising that there is such a thing as adolescent exploration. It will go on, whatever efforts we make. What we want to do is to give people the equipment, the knowledge and the advice to enable them to handle those situations.
1112
In connection with the possibility of parents withdrawing their children, and thereby—
11.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am most obliged to the right reverend Prelate for giving way. He said that it was desirable that sex education should be taught in the classroom rather than in the playground. Normally speaking, one would agree with him. But is he aware that the number of teenage pregnancies since 1986 has grown from 8.7 per thousand to 10 per thousand? The type of teaching given in the classroom does not appear to be effective in the way that he wants and I want.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I recognise that there is not necessarily a direct and immediate relationship between the education people are given and the action they take. We need nonetheless to give people the equipment in order to enable them to handle those situations and to make moral sense of their lives.
Finally, I should like to say a word about parents. We have to be careful about any idea that parents, by withdrawing their children from sex education and taking full responsibility upon themselves, may be landing themselves and their children in problems. I fully accept the responsibility that parents have for educating their own children in matters of sex, as in a great many other matters. But we need to be realistic and recognise that many adolescents do not find their parents the easiest people to talk to when it comes to matters of discovering their own sexuality. I feel that we have been in danger of overlooking that there have been a number of realisms, and those need to be brought back into consideration. The attitude that the Government have taken over the course of this whole matter and in recent debates seems to me to be one of total responsibility and realism. I fully support it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: We on this side urge the Government not to accept, even in principle, these amendments. I should like to talk briefly about two features of the amendments which are of particular concern. First, they create practical difficulties in allowing a partial withdrawal. Even in the realms of religious education the choice is only between full attendance and full withdrawal. The second practical difficulty is the requirement for seven days' written notice which I would argue would be an administrative nightmare. Most sex education is part of a course: for example, in personal or social education or science, as a number of noble Lords have said. It would be wrong, I would contend, for a teacher not to follow a subject if it arose spontaneously—not to follow the arguments through in a science lesson, for example, just because a particular written notice had not been given.
Sex education is one of a number of areas within the curriculum where children will sometimes be taught something that conflicts with the values or beliefs of some parents. The best way of mitigating that conflict is through a dialogue at school level between parents, the head and governors. I believe that that is the current situation. I am not aware of any evidence that governing bodies generally have failed to make

1113
possible such a dialogue. Indeed, I have been involved in setting up such a dialogue during my time on various school governing bodies. But I wonder whether the DFE might make sure that such dialogues are taking place.
This has been a fascinating debate. Perhaps I may say that it has been by far the best debate of the afternoon. The noble Lord who summed up the arguments most effectively from my point of view was the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I could characterise his speech by saying that we are talking about making sure that children have the right information. There is no doubt at all that children will get information about sex. They will obtain it from a number of sources in our society. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly said, if we make sure that they get the right information, they will be less interested in pursuing sources which give them the wrong or misleading information.
It was my noble friend Lord Eatwell who said, in a very powerful speech about the terrible problems of AIDS, that the regulations as they currently stand are not an attack on family life; indeed, they are a defence of life itself. Those are powerful words, but they convey the strength of feeling on this Front Bench of those who oppose these amendments.
In winding up the arguments, I cannot resist noting that some of the younger elements of this Chamber seemed to argue against the amendments while some of the older elements argued in favour of them. I wonder whether that is a reflection of the different and more open attitudes of people who have had quite a full education in sexual matters throughout their schooling. These days there is less prurience and more openness. That is something to be entirely welcomed.
I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Baroness Blatch: At the outset perhaps I could remind the Committee of what I was told a long time ago; namely, that people invariably hear what they want to hear. I want the Committee to know right from the start that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, say when he opened his presentation of the amendment that it was not that he did not want sex education taught at all in schools, but that he wanted it taught and brought under the provisions of the 1986 Act, thereby retaining the freedom of governors to determine whether and how sex education should be taught and that they should respect the wishes of adults who wanted to withdraw their children from it.
I do not take sides about the matter. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, say those words. But almost everyone who has spoken tonight against the amendments has accused the noble Lord of something quite different and of saying something that he did not say.
Lord Eatwell: Perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. It would help to have some clarity on this matter. I accept the argument that she makes. But is it not clear that, if it were the case that under the terms of the 1986 Act governors and parents could decide not to have sex education in schools, could decide the form
1114
of education or could withdraw children from sex education, the arguments of those who oppose the amendments would be entirely relevant?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord misunderstands the point I made. My point concerns what I heard come from the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, when he introduced these amendments. He has been accused by a number of Members of the Committee of saying that he did not wish this subject to be taught in schools. My understanding is that he argued for it to be brought under the provisions of the 1986 Act. At the outset of speaking to this amendment, I want him to know that that is what I heard him say and what I believe he meant.
The Government are clear that all sex education should take place within a framework which encourages pupils to consider the moral dimension of their actions. They should recognise the value of family life and understand the importance of mutual respect. Indeed, that message is at the heart of a draft revised circular on sex education in schools which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State issued for consultation last month. It has already been referred to. Copies are available in your Lordships' Library and many Members of the Committee were personally sent copies by me. I cannot remember which Member of the Committee said it, but I should like to repeat the invitation for all noble Lords who feel strongly on the subject to make representations to my department as a result of that consultation exercise.
While, therefore, I sympathise entirely with the thinking behind Amendment No. 263, one of the purposes of the draft circular is to clarify some confusion, and I should like to take this opportunity also to explain the issue. The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 introduced two major requirements relating to sex education in schools. First, it specified that governing bodies should determine whether their school should offer sex education and, if they so decided, what its form and content should be. Secondly, the governors and others involved in providing sex education were also required to ensure that any such education was given in such a way as to encourage pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. Those responsibilities and that clear moral framework remain in force, whether teaching sex education generally or HIV within the national curriculum science order.
Certain limited aspects of sex education are now included in the national curriculum. In respect both of those elements and of any other sex education a school may provide, all those responsible—governors, heads and teachers—must carry out their responsibilities in such a way as to bring home to young people the moral dimension and the prime importance of the family. We believe that that is a crucial safeguard of which all parents should be aware; and our draft revised circular seeks to help schools to understand clearly, and to implement, those legal duties.
The provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 were therefore modified, but not entirely nullified, by the introduction of the national curriculum. To the

1115
extent that the science order includes certain requirements relating to sex education, governing bodies' discretion over the content of the curriculum is reduced. But the requirements to formulate and keep a written record of the school's policy, and to ensure that moral considerations are given due weight, apply to all aspects of sex education, whether or not they fall within the national curriculum. I hope that with that clarification the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press the amendment.
At the same time, I must accept that a tension and difficulty are created between the two Acts of Parliament; on the one hand, allowing the decision on the part of governors on a determination as to whether education should take place and, on the other hand, sex education within the 1988 Act being compulsory.
The Government fully recognise that sex education is a sensitive and often difficult issue for parents, and we fully understand the strength of feeling which exists about it. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has issued for consultation a draft revised circular which, among other things, firmly stresses that parents should be the key figures in helping their children to cope with the physical and emotional aspects of growing up and in preparing them for the challenges and responsibilities which sexual maturity brings. The teaching offered by schools should be complementary and supportive to the role of parents.
The law governing sex education incorporates important safeguards for parents. Their co-operation and support are essential if schools' policies on sex education are to be fully effective. Legislation provides several ways for parents to be involved and informed about this important aspect of their children's education and for schools to ensure that they give proper consideration to parents' and local community views. It might be helpful if I spell those out in more detail.
As I have already explained, in accordance with the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, the governing bodies of all county and controlled schools must draw up, and keep under review, a written statement of their policy on sex education. And under Section 46 of that Act, governing bodies and head teachers are required to ensure that any sex education which schools provide—whether or not it is required as part of the national curriculum—should be given in such a manner as to encourage pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. All parents have the right to see the governing body's statement and, if they wish, raise the issue with governors at the annual meeting which every governing body must hold in order to allow parents to discuss the way in which they are discharging their duties. In addition, the department's current Circular 11/87 emphasises the need for schools to involve parents as fully as possible in the formulation of policies on sex education. And my right honourable friend's draft revised circular re-emphasises and reinforces that point, in particular making clear that governors should consider issuing to parents an
1116
invitation to raise at the annual meeting any concerns they may have about the school's approach to sex education.
If parents are unhappy with what is being taught or the form in which it is being taught, they have the right to take up their anxieties with the head teacher and the governors, and in the event that they fail to obtain satisfaction, they may pursue the matter through the complaints procedures established under Section 23 of the Education Reform Act 1988.
There has of course been a long-standing right under the Education Acts for parents to withdraw their children from religious education and collective worship in maintained schools. However, there has never been any right of withdrawal relating to the secular curriculum: pupils may not be withdrawn from the teaching of any aspects of sex education provided by their school, whether or not these are required by the national curriculum.
We are being confused by not the right of withdrawal but the governors' freedom to accept the preference that a child should be withdrawn. Under the 1986 Act governors were empowered to allow a child to be withdrawn. We took the view that to concede a right of withdrawal from lessons would work against the interests of securing an effective, broad education for every child. And to require schools to give parents seven days' notice of any sex education to be provided would be difficult in practice.
Schools' programmes of sex education are often part of their wider programmes of personal and social or health education. Pupils need to feel that they can spontaneously raise difficult issues, such as those relating to aspects of sexual behaviour, in such classes and have them discussed and dealt with fully. A requirement to give notice could inhibit a teacher's capacity to respond sensitively and appropriately in such contexts and could work against the development of a trusting and thoughtful approach to such issues.
We believe that the existing legal framework gives parents opportunities to register their views; we would encourage them to make full use of these and to pursue with the head teacher or governors of their children's school any anxieties they might have about what is taught or the form in which it is to be taught. And schools have a duty to discuss both their policies and approaches to sex education with parents and to consider sympathetically and to respond to the anxieties and suggestions of individual parents.
Having said that, I also want to say, in defence of many people who have spoken in favour of the amendments, that I know—not just I believe or I have a feeling that—that some of the AIDS organisations—I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—have been responsible for making available to schools wholly inappropriate literature which I understand has been used in the classroom—and for some children at the young age of 11 years who are studying at the beginning of key stage 3. That is not defensible. But I am sad to say that if a complaint was pursued it would not be upheld because it is permitted under HIV education in the science curriculum. It would have been nice for those who have spoken against the

1117
amendments to have at least recognised that it is not hype or artificial evidence that has been given by some of my noble friends. It is heart-felt and real.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I feel that I must respond to that. Everyone would acknowledge that some unsuitable material may have come from some sources but I would re-emphasise what I said earlier. The vast majority of teachers, the vast majority of people representing AIDS organisations and the vast majority of people representing the National Health Service and the Health Education Authority in this country have behaved very responsibly. That is precisely why we have a much lower rate of HIV and AIDS infection than some of us feared in the mid-1980s.
Lord Stallard: I shall not delay the Committee any longer than I have to. I thank all those who have spoken in the debate, particularly those who spoke in support of my amendments. I thank the noble Baroness for mentioning parts of my speech at the beginning of her speech. I accepted that people came with prepared speeches and did not even listen to my speech. That is one of the problems. They did not even hear me. Then they proceeded to put words into my mouth which I certainly did not say. I do not absolve anybody from that accusation because it went right through the debate. I do not like saying it, but I was a little disturbed when my noble friend on the Front Bench seemed to be putting a party political slant on the issue and speaking as though it were a party decision. I do not accept any party decision on my conscience. I never will and I never have. I have made a note of the words.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend for a moment. One is always respectful to Back-Benchers, but occasionally, Front-Benchers have the right to say what they think.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Yes, but not from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Peston: Yes, even from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Stallard: I will accept that if it is made clear at the beginning that they are speaking in a personal capacity, but that did not come through clearly on these Back Benches.
Lord Peston: We debated this matter on the assumption that we were speaking for ourselves.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stoddard of Swindon: A chap just got the sack for making that assumption!
Lord Stallard: I understand the loyalty of my noble friend Lord Peston to his Front Bench friends. I insist that that is how it came across—and most of the Back-Benchers who were listening will verify what I am saying and that I do not say it for no reason at all. I would have loved to have had the opportunity to
1118
discuss with any Front Bench spokesman these amendments before tonight. Tonight was the first time I heard any of them speak about them, which is sad as far as I am concerned. I would not make it a political issue and I do not believe that anyone else did until that matter arose. I was very sad to hear it.
The noble Baroness just repeats that the 1986 Act and the guidelines are sufficient. It is my case that they are not. They have not proved to be sufficient. The new guidelines will not be carried out any better than the old ones. The strictures in those provisions have been ignored and they will be again. The three amendments which I have put forward should all be written into the Bill where everyone will understand them. There will be no dubiety at all and everyone, whether here or elsewhere, will be bound by the Act if it appears with these amendments in it.
I have no alternative but to ask for the opinion of the Committee on this matter.
1.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 263) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents,56.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Norfolk, D.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Northbourne, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Brentford, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Perth, E.

Cox, B. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grantchester, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strange, B.

Liverpool, E.

Swansea, L.

Longford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brigstocke, B.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Peston, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cranborne, V.

Rea, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Redesdale, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Rennell, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Eatwell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Seear, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Goschen, V.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Granard, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Guildford, Bp.

[Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Wakeham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Judd, L.

Wynford, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 227 agreed to.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 264:
After Clause 227, insert the following new clause:
("Child to be excused from sex education
A child may be excused from receiving sex education at the request of his or her parents, and accordingly at the end of section 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (sex education) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2) If the parent of any registered pupil at a county, voluntary, special or grant-maintained school requests the head teacher of the school in writing that the pupil be excused, wholly or in part, from receiving sex education, the pupil shall be excused accordingly until the request is withdrawn." ").
The noble Lord said: After that vote, I should like to look again at the reply which was given. At this stage I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 264 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 265 not moved.]
Clause 228 [Procedure for making certain orders: Wales]:
Midnight.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 265A:
Page 138, line 27, after ("concerned") insert ("including Cyd-Bwyllgor Addysg Cymru, the Welsh Joint Education Committee").
The noble Lord said: For the third time in the history of the Bill it is my pleasant duty to address the Committee at midnight. I am grateful to the authorities for having grouped the amendment with Amendments Nos. 277 and 278. We are grateful for small mercies. I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 265A.
The Welsh Joint Education Committee—or to give it its Welsh name the Cyd-Bwyllgor Addysg Cymru—which is referred to in the amendment and in Amendment No. 278, is unique in the British education system. It was set up by the Education Act 1944 and its constitution was amended by statutory order in January 1974. Members of the Committee will appreciate the relevancy of the amendment when we come to discuss Amendment No. 278.
The Welsh Joint Education Committee has 118 members of whom 84 are county council representatives. The remaining 34 are members of the teaching profession. Among many other things, it is an examination body. It is true to say that it is mainly answerable to the Welsh local authorities but the members of its examination committee must be approved by the Welsh Secretary of State. That was brought about by the amendment to the constitution by an order passed in 1974. The relevancy of that is that if the original order can be amended once it can be amended twice.
As the WJEC is such an important body in Wales it should be entitled as of right to receive a notice under Clause 228. That refers to a notice of proposal affecting the foundation or core subjects. It is an important notice and in our view it is wrong to bring in the WJEC under the description of "any other
1120
person". It should be referred to specifically in the clause as proposed in the amendment. I hope that the noble Viscount will accept this small proposal.
I turn to the other four amendments which have been grouped with Amendment No. 265A. They deal with two important issues. First, all the function of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority relating to Wales should be the responsibility of a Welsh body. Secondly, it raises the question: which Welsh body should discharge those functions? Amendments Nos. 277B and 279A deal with the first issue and they are based on the same arguments. Amendments Nos. 278 and 279B deal with the second issue but point to different conclusions. Our preference is for the WJEC.
Clause 237 establishes a curriculum and assessment authority for Wales so that the inference to be drawn is that it will exercise in Wales the functions of the SCAA in England. We warmly welcome that development although, as I have indicated already, we should prefer the function to be discharged by the WJEC, as proposed in Amendment No. 278.
The Committee will recall that the functions of the SCAA run to over half a page of nine subsections but, on the other hand, Clause 237 is skeletal. The clause tells us precisely nothing about what functions, if any, will be transferred to the Welsh body or when they will be transferred.
Clause 237 states:
"The Secretary of State may by order"
transfer any function to the Welsh body, but we say that that decision should not be left to the Secretary of State. There should be a mandatory obligation on him to transfer all functions to the Welsh body.
We have been given a clue as to what functions may be transferred to the Welsh body, although the Bill is silent on that. According to the White Paper, the functions to be transferred to the Welsh body will be the curriculum and assessment for Welsh language and, I believe, Welsh medium subjects—but I should be grateful if the Minister will clarify that—at key stages I to 4 but only to stage 3 for all other subjects. Stage 4 is the responsibility of the English body.
There is a great deal of worry about the proposed separation of the assessment function at Key Stage 4. The Minister of State at the Welsh Office claims that parents in Wales must have comparability with parents in England, but I am not aware of single organisation which has asked for that comparability and we note that parents in Scotland and Northern Ireland are not asking for comparability in that respect.
There are three main grounds for concern about the proposed division. I shall summarise them. First, in every subject at all stages, there needs to be a close link between the assessment and curriculum development. But when the curriculum is the responsibility of the Welsh authority and the assessment the responsibility of the English authority, then clearly there is no such link.
Secondly, the case in Wales is much worsened because the Welsh examination body—the WJEC—will have to deal with two different bodies in agreeing the syllabus for GCSE and A-levels.
Thirdly, it has been put to me that the new body must be seen as the responsible body for curriculum and assessment appropriate to Wales. Otherwise, there is the risk that it may be sidelined.
Fortunately the Welsh Office is becoming concerned about the arrangements proposed in the White Paper for oversight and approval of external examinations in Wales at key stage 4 and beyond. The Welsh Office announced at the end of last month that it is reviewing the administrative arrangement and the timing of the transfers which would be necessary if all responsibility for all examinations based on the separate national curriculum orders for Wales, or indeed examinations offered by the WJEC, were to be transferred to the ACAC. We are very pleased that that homework is now being undertaken. It is good news.
I wonder what the noble Viscount can tell us about the review. In particular, can he say when it is likely to be completed and what are its precise terms of reference? It would also be helpful if the noble Viscount could tell us when the Welsh Office intends to appoint a chair to that Welsh authority so that he or she could be involved in the important review.
It is felt in Wales that what is wanted is one undivided authority with both curriculum and assessment responsibility over all subjects, starting at stage 1 and finally arriving at stage 4 and beyond. There is in Wales a central body which is well qualified to undertake curriculum, assessment and examination work; that is the Welsh Joint Education Committee to which I have already referred. That brings me to Amendment No. 278. My noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas has tabled that amendment. I believe that his views are identical to mine on the issue. I shall leave it to him to advance the main argument in support of it.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for speaking to the group of amendments. It enables us, at this early hour of the morning, to debate the Government's proposals in relation to Welsh education, though I must point out that there seems to be less interest in the latter than there was earlier in sex education.
Under Clause 237, the Government's proposals are perhaps a variant of their proposals for the schools funding council. They give the Secretary of State the powers to make transfers as in this case or to establish an authority as in the earlier case without specifying how or when that is to happen. I am sure that the noble Viscount is one of those who would argue that that proves how much autonomy the Welsh Office has been given under the Bill. In other words, it is up to the Secretary of State to decide how those transfers take place. I can understand that argument.
However, I should like to say to the noble Viscount and to others who may share that view that it is preferable to indicate clearly either on the face of the Bill or at least in guidelines which may be published later, or perhaps in something that the noble Viscount may wish to say tonight, how the Welsh Office intends to proceed. It is not satisfactory to devise primary legislation in this place for England and Wales and
1122
then allow Welsh clauses to be somehow open ended whereby the Secretary of State at some stage—whoever may be the Secretary of State; we know who holds the post at present, but it may be a different person by the end of the summer—may make such decisions. That is the first point: the fact that we have yet again an open-ended Welsh clause in terms of timing and implementation.
My second point is one made very cogently by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies; namely, why is there a division in the numbers, functions, areas or key stages as we call them in the technical jargon of assessment? Why is it that only certain areas are transferred and others are not? I ask that because, as we look at the national curriculum, there are four subject areas which are identified in what is known as y cwricwlwm cymreig, following the fashion these days of giving Welsh language titles to various bits of autonomous policy of the Welsh Office. Those are the areas of history, geography, art and music. They are separate subjects in terms of the curriculum. If they are separate, there is an argument clearly for separate assessment and for those areas to be transferred. I appreciate the reasons given why Welsh language and Welsh medium assessments throughout all the key stages apparently are to be transferred, but I think it is a mistake to make that division between the Welsh medium and Welsh language content of assessment and the rest of the key stage assessments for Welsh pupils, particularly when they are being assessed in any event on a curriculum which is distinctive in those subject areas which I indicated.
We can make a contrast with the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, although of course that is not directly relevant to this Bill because we are not legislating here for Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, in those two countries or national regions, or whatever one wants to call them, there are responsibilities clearly divided between the curriculum councils and the assessment councils in a way which is different from the way set out here for Wales. The Northern Ireland schools examination and assessment council acts as an examination board and is also responsible for advising the Secretary of State on examination and assessment matters. That role will in Wales still be divided according to the Government's proposals.
It seems to me that it makes sense to bring together the assessment and curriculum functions. Indeed some of us argued this in another place when the 1988 Education Reform Bill was then going through. We argued that those two functions should be brought together. I believe the experience of the relationship between CEAC as a separate body based in London and the curriculum council in Wales and the assessment that went on in Wales has proved the validity of bringing these activities together in one body. My argument is that if we are bringing part of them together we should bring all of them together, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested.
There is a further side to our argument which is indicated clearly in Amendment No. 278 which I tabled by way of a probing amendment to try to get a clear response from the Welsh Office on how it sees the

1123
relationship between all the bits of this semi-autonomous Welsh education system which we have. In particular, it is right that we should ask what the Welsh Office sees as the role of the Welsh Joint Education Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, indicated, it is a special body in terms of education in Wales and indeed in the whole of the United Kingdom. It brings together the professionals as teachers with local authority representatives. In the situation of the impending changes in local government it may well be the case that the WJEC can look to an enhanced role as an all-Wales education body.
I say that bearing in mind what the noble Viscount said earlier when we were debating the other open-ended clause about the timing of the setting up of the schools funding council. He stated quite clearly that it was his view that there was a distinctive educational culture in Wales and that there was perhaps a different relationship between schools, parents, teachers and LEAs in Wales as compared with the position in certain parts of England where there had been much more interest in grant-maintained status. He made it clear it was not the intention of his department, as it were, to push through the grant-maintained option and opting out of local authority control if indeed parents in Wales were not in favour of that.
It seems to me that the other week the noble Viscount was arguing for a strong role for local education authorities. If there is a role for local education authorities at a district and county level—I certainly believe that is the case after the latest local election results—then surely there is also a role for the WJEC as the all-Wales education authority at that other level—working alongside the new curriculum and assessment authority, or indeed actually taking on those functions itself.
There is another argument to which we want to hear the Minister's response. Would it be more appropriate to transfer the functions that are being transferred, taking into account our argument that we believe that all assessments should be transferred in all the key subject areas, and that all curriculum activities should be transferred, and that those transfers are to take place from the current Schools Curriculum Assessment Authority in England to Wales, rather than to create a new non-departmental public body? The WJEC's role should be enhanced to undertake that work.
I suspect that the noble Viscount will argue that by doing that we are confusing the relationship of the local authority with the relationship of a non-departmental public body accountable to the Welsh Office and therefore to Parliament. I would argue that, if he is serious about the distinctive educational culture and partnership within Wales, using the WJEC might be an appropriate way of pursuing the Government's intentions with regard to Wales. For all those reasons, I support the amendments in this group. I look forward to hearing the Minister make some major concessions at this early hour of the morning.
Viscount St. Davids: Amendment No. 265A would require the Curriculum Council for Wales and its successor, the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales to consult the WJEC on any proposals for changes to national curriculum orders. Clause 228 represents a significant improvement in arrangements for consultation in respect of National Curriculum Orders in Wales. It sets out in the statute book those arrangements and makes clear that those representing educational interests in Wales—associations of local education authorities, bodies representing the interests of school governing bodies and organisations representing school teachers—are to be included in the consultation process.
The amendment seeks to include on the face of the Bill the Welsh Joint Education Committee as one of the organisations to be consulted. The amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. The WJEC is a joint committee of local education authorities. It is a body of high standing which acts on behalf of LEAs in a number of respects. The WJEC is included as a matter of course in all consultation exercises and will continue to be so consulted. But it would be inappropriate to single out the WJEC for particular reference in this context. It represents only LEAs. If we include particular reference to the WJEC then why not particular reference, for example, to the Parent-teacher Association of Wales, or those representing grant-maintained schools.
Amendments Nos. 278, 277B, 279A and 279B would permit the substitution of the WJEC for the Curriculum Council for Wales and thus transfer statutory responsibility for national curriculum assessment arrangements and public examinations to that body.
We have a great deal of admiration for the WJEC and the work it has done for education in Wales but the proposal is misconceived. The Bill proposes that statutory responsibility for assessment matters—just as for curriculum matters—should rest with a statutory Welsh body established for that purpose and accountable to the Secretary of State for Wales and through him to Parliament. The WJEC is a joint committee of local education authorities in Wales—it is answerable to local education authorities. It would be inappropriate for this statutory responsibility to be given to such a body.
Furthermore the WJEC is an examining body in its own right. It would be unacceptable for the WJEC both to approve a syllabus and to set criteria for examinations. Those functions must be kept separate. The Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority is not an examining body and it would be inappropriate to transfer its functions to such a body as the WJEC. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, asked what was the future of the WJEC. The future of the WJEC will be considered carefully as part of the local government reorganisation proposals. It is not proposed to change its present statutory basis until that consideration is complete. The overriding principle is that the WJEC is a body which is answerable to local education authorities and its future should therefore be

1125
determined largely by them. However, what will need to be borne in mind is its significant function as the leading public examination body in Wales.
Clause 237 provides the power for the Secretary of State to transfer by order some or all of the SCAA's functions to the Curriculum Council for Wales or, as it will become, the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales—A wdurdod Cwricwlwm as Asesu Cymru in Welsh. Clause 238 provides for use of both names.
Clause 237 therefore provides the means to secure our intention of transferring assessment functions to the Welsh body. The effect of Amendments Nos. 277B, 279A and 279B appear to be to require the transfer of every function of SCAA in relation to Wales to the Welsh body. While we may not eventually disagree with that proposal, our current position is that we have not yet reached that conclusion. The power is permissive so that it will permit the transfer of all functions if we reach that conclusion, but equally we are not required to transfer functions if it is not necessary.
It may be helpful if I explain the Government's present intention on the transfer. The White Paper, Choice and Diversity, proposed that the transfer should include assessment of Welsh at all key stages, including GCSE and A-level, and the assessment of all other subjects for Key Stages 1 to 3. The White Paper stopped short of proposing transfer of Key Stage 4 including GCSE and A-level for all subjects except Welsh. However, the Minister of State for Wales has recently commissioned a review of the arrangements for Key Stage 4 and beyond. The Chairman of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will participate in that review. The review will consider whether there are any issues in respect of educational standards, costs or timing which would stand in the way of a transfer to ACAC of all GCSE and A-levels and AS-levels. So far as concerns Wales, those functions would relate to such examinations offered by the WJEC or in respect of orders which are separate to Wales. The outcome of the review will be announced later this summer. I understand that we expect it in July. It is important that we maintain public confidence in the education system and ensure that, whatever the outcome, we protect the standards which parents and employers now expect from our examination system. There are therefore important issues to be considered before final decisions can be taken on a transfer of functions.
Clause 237, as drafted, provides us with the flexibility to transfer assessment functions from SCAA—either some or all functions—as and when it is considered appropriate to do so. The amendment, however, would require the transfer of every function without prior consideration.
I can assure the Committee as to our intentions. While I cannot give noble Lords the results of the review, I hope they will accept that we are looking carefully at all the options with the aim of giving the curriculum and assessment authority a significant role
1126
in assessment in Wales. We cannot accept the new clause and amendments which would pre-empt the results of that review.
I understand that the noble Lords also intend to oppose the Question that Clause 237 stand part of the Bill. I am astonished at such an attitude as it seems to run counter to the spirit of the other amendments. To oppose the clause would be to remove the transfer of assessment functions to the Curriculum Council for Wales and to leave all assessment functions in Wales with the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority, a body which is responsible for curriculum matters in England.
It is our intention to bring together curriculum and assessment functions for Wales within a single body, thus to ensure coherence between curriculum and assessment matters for Wales. The Curriculum Council for Wales was set up by the 1988 Act and has been instrumental in ensuring the national curriculum in Wales takes account of the needs of Wales.
We now have separate orders for Wales in five subjects: Welsh, history, geography, art and music. The council has brought its expertise to bear in producing excellent non-statutory guidance for teachers in Wales and in developing the concept of a "Cwricwlwm Cymreig"—a framework for providing a curriculum which takes account of the social and cultural differences of Wales.
It is our intention to build on the strengths of the curriculum council by transferring assessment functions, as I have already explained. It will have the resources and the standing to be pre-eminent in education in Wales just as the schools curriculum and assessment authority will have that role in England. An important part of its functions will be in Welsh language education and we intend to give it responsibility for the development of Welsh language classroom materials.
Here again it will not be starting afresh but will be building on the achievements of the Welsh Language Education Committee of the WJEC or PDAG, as it is known. I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work of that body over the years; it has made an outstanding contribution to education in Wales. Unfortunately the arrangements made through PDAG have, however, been somewhat ad hoc and lines of accountability have not been clear. In framing these proposals we have also been aware of the need to provide for better management accountability and the most cost-effective use of resources. The curriculum and assessment authority for Wales will be the correct body for these functions, while bringing them together with curriculum and assessment functions will enable better use of and accountability for resources.
I shall conclude by saying that this Bill will set a new framework for education in Wales; it will establish a new statutory body capable of providing for the distinctive needs of Wales while building on the strengths of present organisations. This can only be good for Wales—for parents, for teachers and for all pupils in Wales. I recommend that the amendments be rejected and Clause 237 stand part of the Bill.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Perhaps I may come back briefly on two matters: first, the review which the Minister carefully outlined to us. Is my understanding correct that, should the review recommend further transfers of functions, in relation to the curriculum and assessment, using the powers in Clause 237 which the Bill gives the Secretary of State, the Welsh Office might well decide to transfer more functions rather than less? If I understood him correctly, he said that, depending on the outcome of the review, there might be more functions transferred.
The second point which he kindly brought up is the future of the work of the Welsh Language Development Committee, PDAG, of the Welsh Language Education Committee. Am I right in understanding that much of the role is to be transferred to the new ACAC, the new curriculum and assessment body of the Cwricwlwm as Asesu? When that happens, will much of the activity of that committee and PDAG and its officials then be channelled through the new body? If that is the case, I think it is important to establish that there will be effective links between that body and the Welsh language board being established under the Welsh Language Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister could either take those two points now or write to us at a later stage.
Viscount St Davids: First, the whole object of having the review is to provide the Secretary of State with a framework for what transfers will be necessary. As to his other points, I should prefer to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Prys-Davies: I thank the noble Viscount for his comprehensive review of the position in Wales, addressing in particular the amendments which we have tabled. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas for supporting the amendments.
I wish to make a few quick comments on some of the points that the noble Viscount made. I thought that his response to Amendment No. 265A was disappointing. We say that the WJEC should be referred to specifically in Clause 228 because it is a unique body. The Welsh Office admits that it is unique, in as much as it represents both the local authorities and the teachers. So I would be grateful if the noble Lord could urge the Welsh Office to have another look at that amendment.
Turning to another point made by the Minister, I am not convinced that the constitutional position of the WJEC is an insurmountable difficulty. Parliament can certainly modify its constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, made the point that there is a precedent in Scotland and in Northern Ireland for giving to the WJEC the responsibility for both the curriculum and the assessment. I thank the noble Viscount for the information he has given us about the review that the Welsh Office has undertaken and I shall have to consider, and probably take advice, on the information that he has given and the comments that he has made.
1128
Finally, the basic point which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and myself have been trying to make in our amendments is that the Welsh Office should start with a recognition of the value of the Welsh educational system which we have inherited and should seek to develop that system within the traditional framework, to the extent that that is possible.
In practice, we want a great deal less reliance on what happens in England. I can assure the noble Viscount that there is increasing interest within Wales about the Scottish approach and the Northern Ireland approach. The Welsh Office needs to be challenged about its willingness to be a junior partner of the education partnership. I would be grateful if the noble Viscount would convey those comments to the Welsh Office. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 228 agreed to.
Clause 229 [The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 265B:
Page 139, line 12, at end insert ("and approved by the House of Commons Select Committee on Education.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to require that the initial members of SCAA should be approved by affirmative resolution and that all members should be approved by the Select Committee on Education in the other place. The amendment is intended to de-politicise the membership of SCAA.
One of the major complaints about the Bill—one which I realise that I have lodged from time to time—is its centralising tendencies. Currently, both the curriculum and the examination committees are literally stocked with political appointees, even though some of them have now had a very considerable impressive display of conscience which has led them to resign.
The approval of the initial membership of SCAA by both Houses would indicate that there was a wide political consensus around it and that the membership was not set up to propose a specific political viewpoint on the curriculum or on assessment.
The requirement for a vacancy to be filled with the agreement of the appropriate all-party Select Committee in the other place would ensure that the membership remained and was seen to remain fairly allocated. It is very clear from those who have watched the proceedings of the other place that such Select Committees have over recent years demonstrated themselves in a number of areas to be independent and able to take sensible and professional views. Therefore the Select Committee on Education would be ideally placed to approve the membership of SCAA.
Perhaps I may emphasise the importance of this amendment by reiterating that one of the profound concerns which exists in the country as a whole—among parents certainly, among the teaching professions, but more widely among the public—is that to an unacceptable degree this very precious asset of the nation, education, has become a party-political football. It would be tragic if, in the establishment of

1129
the SCAA, those anxieties were to be reinforced. This amendment is intended to meet that position. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: At this time in the morning I shall be as brief as possible. I merely want to say that there are two very important points to be made in connection with this amendment. These are appointments to a committee of very great importance and significance in the development of education.
The first point is that whether or not it is true—the Government will deny it of course—there is a widespread view that committees of that kind have been staffed almost exclusively by people who support the political views of the Government. If that is not true, we shall be very glad to have it so demonstrated. All I can say is that it is a view that is very widely held. It is damaging to the Government and makes it more difficult to get the respect and co-operation needed by committees of that kind.
The other point is that it is very important that the various groups of people affected by the work of the committee should feel that they have had at least some say and that they have been consulted. They should have some idea as to why the people are where they are and feel that they are people whom they support on the committee. Therefore, if the Government want the committee to have respect and authority—if it does not have respect it will not in the long run have authority—I am sure that they would be very well advised to accept this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Amendments Nos. 266 and 266A are in this group and perhaps I may speak to those amendments. The amendment in my name seeks to ensure consultation with the Churches over the membership of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, just said, the membership of that body is crucial if the national curriculum is to have credibility and teachers are to have confidence and so on.
For historic reasons the Churches provide between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the schools in this country. Therefore they have a wide knowledge and experience of the whole curriculum. They have a specialist interest in religious education. It seems important that the Churches should be either represented on or consulted about membership of the SCAA.
Members of that body should be people who have a broad experience and are representative of the major interests. To put it the other way round, there will be a lack of confidence in the SCAA if such a significant quango contains people with unusual axes to grind. If the SCAA contains too many people of that kind, it will become known as the "Schools Carborundum and Axegrinding Authority". We need people who are representative of the broad interests of those who are concerned in this field. I hope therefore that the Government will indicate that they are happy to consult the major providers in the voluntary field before appointing to that body.
There is a technical difference between the amendment which stands in my name and the
1130
amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. They are almost identical except that in the second amendment there is explicit reference to the Roman Catholic Church because of a point raised in previous amendments; namely, that there is some possibility that the Government are not happy about explicit reference to the Roman Catholic Church in primary legislation. However, the substance of the two amendments is the same.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps I could ask him a question and, to save valuable time at this time of the morning, also ask the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, whether he would like to reply when moving his amendment. The amendment of the right reverend Prelate states that:
"the Secretary of State shall consult with the Board of Education of the General Synod of the Church of England and such other persons or bodies as appear to him to be appropriate".
I assume that the Church of England is mentioned specifically as an example of the kind of body that the right reverend Prelate wishes the Minister to consult. The amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, includes the Board of Education of the General Synod of the Church of England and the Catholic Education Service. Again I ask whether they are the kind of bodies with which the Minister should consult? I see that the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, agrees with me. Perhaps I can ask whether other bodies would be considered as compatible for that kind of consultation?
The Duke of Norfolk: First, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments. Secondly, I turn to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. We would like to have the Catholic Education Service spelt out. In these ecumenical times we are a major religion in the country. As the General Synod of the Church of England is included, we would like the Catholic Education Service also to be included.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, perhaps I can say that the reference is made to,
"such other persons or bodies",
because the Churches are not the only bodies in the voluntary sector. There are Jewish schools and others with no specific religious affiliation. We are concerned that the voluntary sector as a whole is adequately consulted.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I accept that completely. I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate can give us any idea of how many other kinds of bodies there are with which the Minister can consult.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am happy to leave that to the Secretary of State. I have not done specific calculations on exactly who they all might be. The equivalent body for the Jewish community would be one. If there were schools representative of other faith communities, they would be included. But there could be other schools in the voluntary sector which are appropriate bodies to be consulted.
12.45 a.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Perhaps I can speak to Amendment No. 266AA, which is the one in my name linked to these amendments. It is a less thorough-going one than that of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, though perhaps slightly more thorough-going than the others we have heard about.
I should like to begin by saying that I believe the Government are quite right to bring curriculum and assessment under the same umbrella, so broadly we welcome this provision in the Bill. However, there are changes that we should like to see made.
It is an important issue. It is unfortunate that it arises at this time in the morning, but that is often the way it goes. The SCAA is really the place where it starts in terms of what goes on in the classroom, both the teaching and the testing side. As we have already heard, there is, sadly, a great rift between those who are responsible for the present Government's policies on education and almost everyone else who is concerned with the subject, both on teaching and, as we can tell from reading the newspapers almost every day, on testing. Strong passions are involved, and I am not principally concerned with who is right and who is wrong. The difficulty is the perception. Again, I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned this.
Only one side is being heard in some of the councils that matter, and one of the chief councils that will matter under the Bill is SCAA. That may be because the Government believe, on their side, that for a long time only the opposite view was heard. Again, it matters less who is right and who is wrong than that we have this pendulum swinging each time with the threat that each new government will undo what the previous government have established.
Somewhere I feel that one has to break into that cycle and seek some consensus, otherwise the world of education will continue to suffer change and uncertainty. No one gains from this charade in the long run.
It is deeply unfortunate that the Government, while devolving many decisions down to school level, have, at the same time, gathered unprecedented powers at the political centre. That makes it more likely that the pendulum will continue to swing that way.
I would not pretend that our amendment, in its wording, can ensure that we get a measure of moderation and also professionalism at the centre where it matters. But it provides for two things that I believe are particularly important. One is the presence at this decision-making centre of at least some professionals who are active and expert in what is being discussed, with a need under (a) to have shown some "capacity", and under (b) a strong suggestion that some serving teachers should be included.
The other is a requirement to consult when looking for members with other experience, under paragraph (c). None of this is intended to be unduly restrictive—it does not, for example, demand that the Secretary of State consult everyone in the educational world about every nomination to the authority. But it goes some way towards plugging a perceived gap in the way arrangements have sometimes been conducted.
1132
I was going to point out how the wording that we have—words like "shown capacity in", "currently engaged in", "carrying responsibility for the provision of education"—is taken from the 1988 Act, where it sets up the Universities Funding Council, and the Further and Higher Education Act. But I will not go into all that because of shortage of time except to stress that, if it was thought appropriate for funding councils, then how much more appropriate it must be for a curriculum and assessment body to have people of that kind on it.
I do not need second sight to know that the noble Baroness the Minister will tell your Lordships that this amendment is not necessary. But I believe it is very necessary educationally, to put a check on any temptation that there might be to appoint people the strength of whose opinions is equalled by the weakness of their hands-on experience but also, crucially, for reasons of morale. I spoke to a group of heads the other day whose top priority was to see a modest amendment of this kind in the Bill. It would give a very welcome signal—I stress this point once again—a healing signal in a time of strife. I hope that the Government will have the wisdom to accept what we are proposing; if not the exact words of this amendment, then something very like it.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may take this rare opportunity to support the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, in what he is saying. To rebuild the confidence of teachers and to build a team is greatly needed at this time. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity to support the right reverend Prelate and the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, in their amendments.
Lord Judd: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 266B. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to include among his appointments to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority someone who is indeed a governor of a state school. Such governors are, after all, responsible for securing compliance with the national curriculum and assessment under it and have a valuable non-expert contribution to make to the broad pattern and shape of both.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may make a couple of quick comments, first, on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We see the appearance of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education which, so far as I know, is a body of no legitimacy in this matter. It is not answerable to anyone. It is an entirely inappropriate body to be involved in these things and raises the spectre, at least to my mind, of American-style inquisitions of candidates, which I would not welcome. Secondly, on what I might call the religious amendments, as drafted they raise the prospect of a large number of appointments. I calculate that there might be five under Amendment No. 266. I hope that my noble friend will resist the temptation to pack this very important committee with representatives of any special interest group.
Lord Henley: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take very great care to ensure that membership of the authority has the necessary

1133
balance of experience and expertise to ensure its successful functioning. Equally, however, my right honourable friend is concerned to avoid being boxed in by a requirement to reserve seats for representatives of specific interests, as my noble friend has just put it. If he were to concede on representation in one case, however worthy, it would be very difficult to draw the line at other requests from organisations and groups which also have a stake in what happens in our schools.
We firmly believe that the dominant consideration in selecting members of the authority should be the contribution that they can bring as individuals. As soon as legislation itself begins to tie membership to people from specific backgrounds, that principle will suffer. This applies to the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate, the amendment in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and to Amendment No. 266B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Turning to Amendment No. 266AA in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and others, I freely acknowledge that we have no particular problems with paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment which adopts similar wording to that used in the section on membership of the funding agency for schools.
Clause 229 as it is simply makes the point more briefly, although I believe that the noble Lord will note that in the case of the SCAA it is a requirement rather than a mere desire to include persons with relevant knowledge of or experience in education. I am certainly quite happy to give the noble Earl an assurance on the Secretary of State's behalf that he will consider the desirability of including persons who are currently engaged in the provision of both primary and secondary education.
Paragraph (c) of this amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult organisations representing teachers and others on what expertise and experience, other than experience of primary or secondary education, are desirable among members of the SCAA. I know that my right honourable friend is willing to consider suggestions about the expertise or experience needed among members. He has already received correspondence on that point.
I do not believe that we need set up a statutory consultation procedure in order to allow teacher organisations and others to make their views known. That would simply result in an unnecessarily protracted procedure prior to each appointment. In any case, I suspect that this proposal is simply another way of seeking to ensure that specific interest groups can lobby for their specific representation on the SCAA. As I have said already, that route leads us away from the selection of individuals on their merits and we do not intend to follow it.
Lastly, I turn to the first two amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which again seek to ensure that the best possible people are represented on the SCAA. However, the proposals contained in the amendments
1134
would result in an unacceptably unwieldy and unworkable procedure for the appointment of members to the authority.
Perhaps I may tell the Committee how that amendment would operate in practice. Before appointing a member the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult a wide range of national organisations. The names of the nominees would then be passed to the Education Select Committee which would recommend people for appointment on the basis of interviews. In the case of rejection, the Secretary of State would be under a duty to undertake yet another consultation procedure and produce a further list of names for consideration by the Select Committee and repeat that until the committee was content.
Moreover, that procedure would not be taking place just once for the appointment of initial members of the authority but every time a vacancy arose on the SCAA. At the risk of being somewhat less conciliatory than I have been in the past, I suggest that that is plainly ridiculous. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: It is a pity that we always think that, because of our experience about how we conducted our political and constitutional affairs in this country in the past, we have by definition the best possible solutions. The procedure which is recommended is regularly followed in the United States in a whole range of key public appointments and results in building towards a situation in which broadly acceptable people are put into positions on behalf of the nation as a whole. I believe that it would be a very good thing in the sphere of education to start pioneering some new developments in our own area.
What the Minister has totally failed to deal with in his reply is the mistrust which exists at the moment. There is a widespread feeling—indeed, a conviction—that there have been very specific interests appointed to those positions in the past, interests which are purely politically partisan in their loyalties. There is a real desire that that should not be repeated in the new arrangements.
I am sorry that the Minister has felt unable to deal with the anxiety which is demonstrably there across the country. But again, as it is so characteristic of much broader issues in this Bill, and in view of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 265C and 266 not moved.]
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 266A:
Page 139, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) The Secretary of State shall include among the members of the Authority—

(a) persons with relevant knowledge of or experience in education and

(b) persons who appear to him to be representative of the principal religious denominations interested in the provision of education in voluntary schools and endowed grant-maintained schools.

Before appointing a person falling within paragraph (b) above the Secretary of State shall consult with the Board of

1135
Education of the General Synod of the Church of England and the Catholic Education Service and such other persons or bodies as appear to him to be appropriate.").
The noble Duke said: I shall not move this amendment. I am not at all happy. On this body religion should be considered and maybe have representation.
[Amendment No. 266A not moved.]
1 a.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 266AA:
Page 139, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) In appointing the members of the Authority, the Secretary of State—

(a) shall include persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education or to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for the provision of education,

(b) shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who are currently engaged in the provision of—

(i) primary education, or

(ii) secondary education,

(c) shall have regard to the desirability of including persons with other expertise or experience, and in carrying out his functions under this paragraph shall consult—

(i) such organisations representing teachers, and

(ii) such other persons

as he thinks fit in order to inform his determinations of what other expertise or experience is relevant.").
The noble Earl said: I should just like to thank the noble Lord for his comments. I am grateful for small mercies, certainly under paragraphs (a) and (b) and for the somewhat sympathetic reception they had. As to paragraph (c), it was not intended to be cumbersome and to make consultation on every conceivable instance. There may be a better way of doing it—I do not know—and there will be time to work that out at a later stage, but meanwhile I am grateful to the Minister.
[Amendment No. 266AA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 266B not moved.]
Clause 229 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [School Curriculum and Assessment Authority]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.266C:
Page 204, line 15, leave out ("with the consent of the Treasury").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to all the other amendments grouped with it. The effect of Amendments Nos. 266C to H is to bring the method of payment of SCAA members into line with Treasury guidelines. The effect of Amendments Nos. 275A and B is to redefine the period of the first financial year. This will now end on the first 31st March after its establishment in October rather than the second 31st March. This amendment brings the provisions for SCAA into line with those for the funding council.
The effects of Amendments Nos. 327A, 332ZA, 334B, and 341B are to list the SCAA as an exempt charity under the 1993 Act rather than the 1960 Act and to remove NCC and SEAC from the list of exempt charities under the 1993 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 266D to 266H:
Page 204, line 16, after ("shall") insert (", as regards any member in whose case the Secretary of State may so determine,").
Page 204, line 16, leave out from ("make") to ("as") in line 17 and insert ("provision for the payment of such sums by way of pension, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of him").
Page 204, line 18, leave out ("with the consent of the Treasury").
Page 204, line 23, leave out ("with the consent of the Treasury").
Page 204, line 23, at end insert:
("(4) A determination or direction of the Secretary of State under this paragraph requires the approval of the Treasury.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 267 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 205, line 21, leave out ("shall be entitled to") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 268, I should like to speak also to Amendments No. 269 and 271 to 275. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have added their names to the amendment.
The main purpose of the amendment is to deny representatives of the Secretary of State the automatic right to attend any meetings of the authority, the new authority or any committee of the authority as they are now entitled to do under subsections (15) to (17) of Schedule 13. The new authority comprises a chairman and between 10 and 15 members appointed by the Secretary of State. I am not quite sure for what initial period. In addition, there will be the permanent officials of the authority, including the chief officer—over 100 of them. Your Lordships might be interested to know that at the moment there are over 100 officials in the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) and something like that on the National Curriculum Council (NCC), so there is quite a solid body of officials—quite a large number of them.
The provisions in dispute are those which entitle representatives of the Secretary of State, of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools and of the Chairman of the Curriculum Council for Wales to attend meetings of the authority by right. Instead of that automatic right, this group of amendments says that representatives of these individuals may attend if invited to do so by the chairman of the authority. We are trying to ensure that the advice that the authority gives to the Secretary of State in the areas of its remit, as specified in Clause 230, is not unduly influenced by the department to which the advice is being tendered. In other words, that the authority does not simply give the Secretary of State the advice which the department wants him to have.
In an ideal world it would do nothing but good for the Secretary of State to know what the authority is thinking, for the authority to know what the Secretary of State is thinking and for some reciprocal influence to develop between both. However, unfortunately in practice the relationship is far from symmetrical. The listening tends to be one way. The Government

1137
advisers listen to the Secretary of State through his representative. Even worse the authority tries to second guess what the Secretary of State wants and it tailors its advice to what it deems to be politically appropriate at that moment rather than to what it thinks is right.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the officials of the authority will tend to give more weight to the views of the department than to their nominal masters in the authority. I speak from experience and I can assure the Committee that it is an uphill struggle to make headway against that very solid phalanx of officials. I fear to add to that struggle by the inhibiting effect of the presence of the representative of the Secretary of State.
I do not want to be dogmatic about all this. On many occasions and for many purposes it would be extremely useful to have outside officials in attendance but that is not denied by the amendment. The chairman can and often will invite those people to be present. The schedule which we are trying to amend denies the right of the authority or any of its committees to deliberate in private. That will make membership of the authority less attractive to independent-minded people and, more importantly, it will cast doubt on its independence and, therefore, the credibility of its advice.
Perhaps I may end on a personal note. One of the things which I minded most was the common assumption that the two bodies, on one of which I had the honour to serve, were packed with placemen of the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, took the words out of my mouth by saying exactly that and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, also alluded to it. I do not believe that any members of the two councils can be so described. If anyone had been present at their meetings they would know that that was not so and that there was no shortage of independence. However, I can see why it was to some extent believed and that that perception damaged their authority. Anything which enhances the independence of the new authority can only improve public confidence in its advice. Nothing would help that better than the removal of the automatic right—
Baroness Seear: I did not say that that was so. I said that there was a widely-held belief that that was so, which is quite different but very important.
Lord Skidelsky: I thank the noble Baroness. That was what I said; that there was the perception that it was packed with placemen. Anything which enhances the independence of the authority can only improve public confidence in its advice. Nothing would help that more than the removal of the automatic right of the Secretary of State's representatives to attend all its meetings. It is that which the amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: Clearly these are important amendments. If the SCAA is to give genuine and independent advice to the Secretary of State, potential obstruction—intentional or even unintentional—by DFE and Ofsted officials to the framing of that advice should be
1138
demonstrably removed. It should be a matter of course that in the normal run of things the SCAA invites officials from both organisations to their meetings since both office and department have invaluable advice to offer. However, there may well be occasions on which the presence of officials inhibits frank discussion between SCAA council members or officials. That seems self-evident.
Indeed, the ex-chief executive of the National Curriculum Council, Duncan Graham, catalogues in a lesson for us all all too tellingly the impact of unwanted and uninvited DFE officials' presence at sensitive meetings. From his descriptions it is evident that their presence served on those occasions to act as a barrier between the NCC and the then Minister, Kenneth Baker, and generally inhibited discussion. I believe that these very timely amendments would help to overcome difficulties of that nature in the future.
Lord Kilmarnock: I speak as a layman. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I have never belonged to any such body as that and I am not likely to. However, my reluctance to accept such an invitation would be much increased without the safeguard provided by the amendments. The issue is essentially the independence of the new amalgamated body on proper arms-length principles.
I understand that at meetings of the two previous bodies, officials from the department and representatives of HMI frequently dominated the proceedings, even to the extent of fixing the outcome in advance. If that is so, what on earth is the point of having such a body at all? Decisions may as well be made by the department at the outset. Sir Ron Dearing will have a difficult enough task in producing independent advice on very tricky current problems which the Secretary of State can accept or reject. But it is vital that the advice should be independent before the Secretary of State decides whether to accept, reject or modify it.
The officials will have his ear in any event without being included as of right in the authority's deliberations. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, they can be invited when the authority seeks their advice. That seems to be the right way round, the right balance. I hope that the Government will see the sense of that. My reluctance to be headhunted and the reluctance of others far better qualified than I would then be much diminished.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In rising to support this series of amendments, I should point out that the two amendments which have been withdrawn, Amendments Nos. 267 and 270, were in my name. I withdrew them because I bow to the superior knowledge of the movers of these amendments.
My amendments would have permitted civil servants from the DFE and representatives of HMI together to attend only alternate meetings of SCAA. SCAA would have thus had one private meeting followed by another at which civil servants and representatives of HMI attended and so on. The object of my amendments was of course to allow SCAA some opportunity to meet and debate in private.

1139
My amendments would also have prevented automatic right of access to sub-committees of SCAA. I think that this is an important point which I do not think that these amendments fully cover. As the Bill is at present drafted, it would appear to allow civil servants and HMI the right to attend even clandestine meetings of a few members of SCAA who have established themselves as a small committee, perhaps with the precise purpose of discussing the quality of advice which they might be receiving from the department.
I am aware that the ice may be getting a little thin under me at this point with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway who, in view of our exchange at Second Reading, I am relieved to see is not in his place. But I am sure that many of us who have had experience of sitting on government education quangos will be familiar with the moment when a discussion may be finely balanced and when a civil servant from the department intervenes with a phrase such as, "Perhaps it will help the council if I were to tell you how Ministers' minds are moving on this point". It has to be said that councils of this type are too often swayed by that sort of intervention and as a result usually take the wrong decision.
I would not dare to suggest that Ministers' minds may have been moving in the wrong direction and certainly not, of course, under the present Government so much as the civil servant may have misinterpreted his Minister's thought processes.
I trust that the cross-party support for these amendments indicates that these comments should not be taken to apply particularly to this Conservative Government or, indeed, to a government of any other party. In my view, they simply seek to limit the interference of Ministers and civil servants in the running of SCAA which would thus gain in independence to the benefit of our schools and our children.
Of course, there should be two fairly simple remedies for the kind of problem that I have depicted. First, a civil servant who makes that kind of mistake too often should be removed. Secondly, people who sit on the quangos in question should know their own minds and be strong enough, when necessary, to stand up against ministerial guidance whether accurately delivered or not. But the sad reality appears to be that neither of those two remedies is likely to be available in practice. That is why the amendments become so valuable. They will allow SCAA to meet and deliberate in private when its chairman judges that to be necessary. If the amendments were to be brought back at a later stage, I very much hope that allowance will also be made for its sub-committees to do likewise. In the meantime, I feel sure that they would do much to improve the quality of advice that SCAA will give. I hope that the Government will acccept the amendments.
1.15 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: We have been very conscious of the need to keep to a minimum the number of non-members who are entitled to attend meetings of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
1140
The legislation proposes that their number should be limited to three individuals, each representing a key partner of the SCAA. It is already the case that no one other than the representatives of the Secretary of State, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and the chairman of the Curriculum Council for Wales can attend unless authorised by the chairman of the SCAA. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to explain the thinking behind the decision to allow representatives of the Secretary of State, HMCI and the chairman of the Curriculum Council for Wales to attend.
It is essential that the Secretary of State is kept informed of the authority's activities and intentions. Just as importantly, for the authority to operate efficiently, it must be aware of the Secretary of State's thinking on curriculum and assessment matters. The most efficient way of keeping both parties informed is for a representative of the Secretary of State to attend meetings of the SCAA. Similarly, we expect that the authority will often look to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for advice and information. The best way of serving the authority in that respect is to ensure that HMCI, or his representative, can be present at meetings.
Finally, we come to attendance by the chairman of the Curriculum Council for Wales. Although many assessment functions relating to Wales will be transferred to the Welsh body, there will be a continuing interest in enabling assessment arrangements in England and Wales to develop in parallel towards the joint assessment at key stage 4. That is why we want to ensure that the chairmen of the English and Welsh bodies can each be represented at each others' meetings.
I hope that it will be seen that these three individuals have been granted rights of attendance to meetings of the SCAA for good reason—to allow the SCAA, the Department for Education and the inspectorate to work together to improve education in this country through mutual co-operation and the sharing of ideas. The legislation prohibits those non-members from taking part in the decisions of the authority and clearly they must not attempt to dominate or direct the discussions. It is for the chairman, Sir Ron Dearing, to make sure that that does not happen. But if we make it possible for those three officials to be excluded against the will of those they represent, it could undermine the process of mutual understanding and co-operation. That is the intention of the proposal in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Skidelsky: I do not intend to press the amendment at this point. However, I am not completely satisfied with what my noble friend the Minister said. It seems to me that she did not really address the point that the presence of officials as of right will simply prevent the private deliberation which is so necessary and which can, on occasion, formulate good advice.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the remit in Clause 230. One of the functions of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority shall be to,

1141
"advise the Secretary of State on such matters concerned with the curriculum for maintained schools … as he may refer to them or as they may see fit".
It seems to me essential that if the authority is considering what to advise the Secretary of State off its own initiative, as it is perfectly entitled to do, it should be free to do so without feeling that it has to pay regard to the representatives of the Secretary of State who are attending by right. I seek to remove that automatic right. I do not think my noble friend has addressed that point.
I would not of course dispute that for many purposes and on many occasions it would be very natural for that process of mutual consultation which she described to take place, but it is the inability of SCAA to exclude a representative of the Secretary of State on any occasion—I think that includes its committees—that is in question. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 270 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 271 to 275 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 275A and 275B:
Page 206, line 20, leave out ("second") and insert ("next following").
Page 206, line 21, leave out ("following that date").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 266C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 230 [Functions]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 275BA:
Page 139, line 28, leave out from ("and") to ("to") in line 29.
The noble Lord said: Unfortunately, political intervention has prevented the National Curriculum Council and the Schools Examination and Assessment Council from conducting genuinely independent research into the success of national curriculum subjects and into forms of assessment and testing. A positive initiative by the NCC in 1990 led it to review the introduction of the national curriculum core subjects in schools. What was unique about that review was that it systematically reflected teacher opinion about the success and failures of aspects of the subject order. But that exercise was never continued. As a consequence teacher opinion, now so vital to the Secretary of State's review of curriculum and assessment, has not been consistently recorded.
Controversies over the revision of particular subject orders could also have been avoided if the NCC had been able to commission independent research. One particularly good example is the background research leading to the Secretary of State's proposals to revise the English order. Warwick University, commissioned by the NCC to research problems of English implementation, has been prevented from opening its research results to public scrutiny. Had such work been open to public scrutiny
1142
and debate about the parameters and focus of the research, there would have been much greater likelihood of consensus among teachers and governors about whether the English subject order needed revising. Instead the Government's proposals are the subject of implacable hostility from the entire profession who perceive both the research, HMI/ Ofsted contributions, and other contributions used to justify the revision as being politically driven.
Similarly, the assessment debate has been dogged by lack of genuinely independent and accountable research into appropriate forms of assessment. For example, the publication of the research conducted by Leeds University into the 1991 Key Stage 1 standard assessment tasks was delayed by Government for over a year. Researchers and SEAC members were forbidden to discuss its contents.
In addition in-house SEAC and NFER research into pilot tests at Key Stage 1–3 have either never been published or published late. The evaluation of the 1992 2 per cent. pilot for the Key Stage 2 English tests has never been published yet. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, Chair of SEAC felt able to quote selectively large chunks of it in a copy of a speech which he sent round to all secondary schools. The Secretary of State has been able to do the same. Yet the evaluation has never been published. Research commissioned by the NCC and SEAC at the Secretary of State's behest has consequently inevitably been distrusted, especially by the profession, whether or not that distrust has been justified. In fact, the Secretary of State himself appears to have learned some of the lessons about no accountable research. In a speech to the ATL on 7th April he said:
"I have asked Ofsted to report its findings to me as soon as possible after the tests. That is why SEAC has commissioned an evaluation of the tests from the National Foundation for Educational Research. And that is why I will be encouraging the new School Curriculum and Assessment Authority before advising me on the 1994 assessment arrangements to take active steps to listen and to reflect the views of heads, teachers and teachers' organisations".
It would have been immensely valuable for all Secretaries of State post the Education Reform Act 1988 to have been able to rely upon research commissioned by the NCC and SEAC, however politically uncomfortable that research may have been at the time, in order to inform government policy on curriculum assessment.
It must be emphasised that the amendment does not prohibit the Secretary of State from asking the SCAA to conduct research. Neither does it allow an open ended research budget commitment. The Secretary of State would still have the responsibility to approve SCAA research bids and for the size of the SCAA research budget. What the amendment does is merely allow the SCAA independently to identify important areas of research and to argue for them.
More briefly on Amendment No.275D, the new SCAA should not be constrained to advising the Secretary of State on only those issues which the Secretary of State wants to hear about. For example, the DFE and the Secretary of State have resisted the concept of a value-added approach to reporting pupil achievement for a considerable period of time. Yet the evidence for a value-added approach is fairly

1143
conclusive. Children start from different baselines of achievement when they enter school, and they are affected by factors such as social deprivation and having English as a second language. If SEAC had been able to advise the Secretary of States on issues surrounding value-added approaches to assessment, it is unlikely that the Government would have decided to go for a league table of schools based upon raw assessment results.
On Amendment No. 275E, if that paragraph remains, it is possible for the Secretary of State to require the SCAA to carry out functions outside its curriculum and assessment role. Such functions would not even be defined by subsequent regulations put before this place. Although the word "activities" may merely cover additional research and advice, it could also cover other areas of education such as school management and governing body procedures. In fact, if the paragraph remains there is no limit to the activities of the SCAA.
On Amendment No. 277A, perhaps I may point out that subsection (3) (b) defines the reasonable subordinate role of the SCAA to the Secretary of State in reasonable terms. However, subsection (3) (a) allows the Secretary of State to direct the SCAA to do anything that the Secretary of State wants, however arbitrary, irrational or petty. The word "plans" in subsection (3) (b) implies that the Secretary of State has given consideration to the implications of any requirement he may place on the SCAA and that such requirements have been the subject of collective scrutiny. As such, I submit that subsection (3) (b) renders subsection (3) (b) redundant. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: The crux of the matter once again is whether this authority is to be genuinely independent or whether it is to be a limb of government. That is why we were trying to ensure that people were appointed who were not placemen. We have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that they are not, but there is no evidence that they are not. Similarly, if it is to be an independent authority it should be able to decide what research needs to be done and to get on and do it. It should not have to wait to be asked by the Secretary of State to do it. All the evidence is that the Government do not want an independent authority.
These are probing amendments to find out how genuine the Government are in their assertion that it is an independent authority. At present I fear that I am totally unconvinced that it is an independent authority of people who have knowledge and concern in that area and who are determined to act in accordance with what they believe to be best. In the proposed legislation, the Government really want a group of people of their own choosing to do their bidding. That is not what we on this side of the Chamber wish to see.
1.30 a.m.
Baroness Blotch: Amendment No. 275BA would enable the authority to undertake and finance research which the Secretary of State had not requested. I am concerned about the implications for financial control and accountability. We are not suggesting that
1144
research will be impossible unless the Secretary of State suggests it. If the authority considers that some research is necessary for it to fulfil its functions it can ask the Secretary of State to agree to it. But a blanket freedom to devote resources to such research as it chooses is more appropriate to a university department than to a body such as SCAA which has specific responsibilities. I suggest that it would be irresponsible to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 275D would amend Clause 230(1) (g). This subsection exists because there may be educational issues on which the Secretary of State feels the SCAA would be competent to advise but which do not obviously fall within the functions agreed by Parliament. We believe that a mechanism should exist to enable the Secretary of State to take advantage of the authority's expertise in these circumstances, but we recognise that Parliament has a right to comment on the proposed extension of the authority's functions. That is why the Bill provides for an order to be made, specifying what the additional functions are.
But this amendment would allow the authority, of its own volition, and without any request from the Secretary of State and still less approval of Parliament, to offer advice on anything it wished in connection with school education, such as teachers' pay, for example, or the conduct of governing bodies. We believe that it would be quite wrong for a body set up to advise on curriculum and assessment to be able to spend public money developing advice on issues where it may have no expertise or which were outside its remit. That is why I urge that the provision be left as it is.
Amendment No. 277A is the third one which would increase the independence of the authority. It does so by freeing it from the need to comply with the directions of the Secretary of State. It is not our intention to set up a free-standing body which can ignore the national priorities signalled to it by the Secretary of State. It is being set up for a specific purpose; namely, to advise the Secretary of State and assist him in carrying out Parliament's wishes in relation to curriculum and assessment. The Secretary of State needs the power to require the authority to carry out certain activities if Parliament's wishes are to be fulfilled. That is why I resist the amendment.
Interestingly, Amendment No. 275E would narrow the remit. It takes out Section (1) (h). This section enables the authority to undertake activities ancillary to its functions, when directed to do so by the Secretary of State. It is there to ensure that the authority is not confined too rigidly. It might, for example, be desirable for it to look at the way the curriculum is organised in another country and to draw lessons for this country. That could be an entirely laudable objective. Proposals for such ancillary activities could originate either with the authority or with the Secretary of State. It is desirable that there should be a requirement for a direction from the Secretary of State so as to ensure that there is agreement upon the need for the activity. But we do not want to prevent the SCAA from taking the

1145
initiative. If the authority wishes to undertake something, it may ask the Secretary of State to agree to it.
To sum up on this group of amendments, I am sure that noble Lords will agree with my view that Clause 230 achieves the right balance between freedom and control. The amendments would upset that balance. I hope that in the light of that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Judd: The hour is late and it is good of the Minister to reply at all in a sense. However, I begin to feel sorry for her because it seems to me that she is somehow or other trapped in a make-believe world in which she and her colleagues in the Government suppose that the situation in the world of education is as they wish it were rather than as it is. There is a massive crisis of credibility and confidence out there. The Minister must address the problem. This lack of confidence may be legitimate or it may be completely ill-conceived, but the fact is that it is there. If we are to generate a good future for education we must be able to demonstrate beyond doubt that advice is impartial and honest, that research is impartial and honest and that it is enabling the Minister, on the basis of objectivity and impartiality, to get the best comprehensive view of the possibilities and to make the best possible decisions for what should be done.
I am sorry that the Minister has again illustrated how out of touch the Government appear to be with social and educational reality in the country at the moment. It has been happening repeatedly tonight and every night in our deliberations. I am becoming rather despondent about it, but it puts a heck of a responsibility on the rest of us in the Committee to try to drive the point home. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 275C:
Page 139, line 36, at end insert ("including information to facilitate the avoidance of unlawful racial discrimination").
The noble Lord said: The wording of Amendment No. 275C, which reflects the spirit and to some extent the wording of Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, establishes the legislative authority to promote ethnic data collection and analysis. Ethnic data collection and analysis should be the cornerstone of any serious and systematic strategy for eliminating unlawful racial discrimination from the education system. It will result in the identification of precisely where and how unlawful racial discrimination operates. This will ensure that efforts to prevent unlawful discrimination could be both focus-efficient and cost-effective.
The Government's own ethnic data collection and analysis on the exclusion of pupils from schools have revealed a highly significant over-representation of Afro-Caribbean boys among those excluded. That data collection exercise has led to the problem being recognised and quantified and efforts being made to find a solution to it in the form of the DFE's
1146
discussion paper on exclusions of November 1992. This is a practical example of the value of ethnic data collection.
The same principle is illustrated by the Commission for Racial Equality's study of setting and banding in a North of England comprehensive school entitled Set to fail and published in 1992. This is able to show an unfair distribution of Asian children between bands on racial grounds, by a systematic monitoring of the ethnic origin of pupils.
Only this process of ethnic data collection and analysis can identify unlawful discrimination which can often otherwise remain unseen. The problem having been identified, ameliorative action can be taken. Indeed, in the case of the school just mentioned, procedures were very much revised. It is because of the need to identify discriminatory practices with precision and because they can remain hidden without systematic analysis that the Commission for Racial Equality argues that ethnic data collection and analysis should be applied comprehensively to the education system.
Currently, DES Circular 16/89 requires local education authorities to collect ethnic data on admissions to school at ages 5 and 11 years. Without also collecting data on applications, such an exercise will not reveal any unlawful discrimination that may occur in admissions to schools. In addition, despite the circular, the data are being collected haphazardly and in some areas not at all.
Because of that, the commission believes that the practice of ethnic data collection and analysis should be required by the Education Bill and that the scope of the data collection should be expanded from that defined in DES Circular 16/89 to include setting and banding, SATs, examination entries and examination results.
With regard to Amendment No. 276A, the Government accepted advice from the Commission for Racial Equality during the passage of the Education Bill through the other place to ensure that the funding agency for schools and the Schools Funding Council for Wales were covered by the Race Relations Act 1976, and amended Schedule 16 to the Bill to that effect. Following the Government's commitment to that amendment, the commission argued that it ought to follow that all other new bodies proposed by the Bill should also be covered by the RRA. However, in correspondence between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for schools and the chairman of the commission, the Government have made clear their view that that should not be the case for the SCAA.
Part of the commission's argument for the applicability of the RAA to the SCAA was that it would carry out functions previously undertaken by local education authorities which are covered by the RRA. The Government have argued that the RRA need not apply to the SCAA because it will not be assuming functions previously undertaken by LEAs.
The commission disagrees and argues for the applicability of the RRA to the SCAA for the following reasons. When passing the RRA in 1976 it was clearly Parliament's intention that all public

1147
bodies should be covered by it. As we argued the other night in another context, the symbolic significance of a differential application of the RRA is powerfully negative. It communicates an equivocal message about government commitment to eradicating unlawful racial discrimination from the education system, which contradicts the Government's public statements on this issue.
When issuing guidance on the curriculum—for example, on the provision of English as a second language—such guidance should be provided within the RRA. In 1986 the commission published its formal investigation of English as a second language in Calderdale. That established a framework for such provision that should be reflected by the SCAA. The most effective guarantee that that will be the case and that similar examples of curriculum guidance are lawful is to ensure that the SCAA is subject to the RRA. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I deal first with the noble Lord's Amendment No. 275C. We believe that the idea that the SCAA should be involved in elements of ethnic monitoring is entirely inappropriate. We believe that this matter falls more properly to the department, with its general statistical responsibilities. We do not believe that it is a matter which falls to the SCAA but no doubt it is one of which it can take account in its deliberations.
As regards the second of the two amendments, I do not believe that it is necessary to resort to legislation to ensure that the authority carries out its functions without any form of discrimination. I certainly expect that the commissioning letter to the authority will ask it when exercising its functions to take account of the ethnic and cultural diversity of British society and will emphasise the importance of developing a curriculum that promotes equality of opportunity for all pupils regardless of ethnic origin or for that matter gender. That is no more and no less than we have done for the National Curriculum Council and the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council. I hope therefore that with those assurances the noble Lord, while accepting that we understand the strength with which he speaks on these matters, the importance which he attaches to them and the importance which the Government attach to them, will not feel it necessary to press his amendments.
Lord Judd: It would be unreasonable at this hour to press the amendment. I have heard what the Minister said. We shall have to monitor and watch the situation very carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.45 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 275 D and 275E not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 140, line 2, at end insert:
("( ) advise the Secretary of State on any religious education syllabus prepared under the provisions of schedule 5 of the Education Act 1944 and consider the extent to which any such syllabus complies with section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988 and make its views public,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this
1148
amendment briefly I must emphasise that it is a probing amendment tabled in response to the recent National Curriculum Council's report which voiced grave concern over the content and quality of agreed syllabuses drawn up since the 1988 Education Reform Act. My noble friend the Minister is well aware of all the problems currently surrounding the quality and status of some agreed syllabuses and is well aware that the report found that 27 out of 36 updated syllabuses did not match the legal requirements of that Act.
It is to address that lack of quality and consistency that the amendment seeks to give the new SCAA a monitoring role in regard to agreed syllabuses. That role could include the issuing of general guidance as to the content of syllabuses and would also require the SCAA to report publicly on the legality of each syllabus in accordance with the 1988 Act.
As I said, this is a probing amendment. We believe that, given the problems, there is a need for some clear guidance concerning the content of agreed syllabuses. That would not go so far as a national curriculum for RE, although some people would not be averse to a prototype which might serve as a kind of option and/or a source of reference. This amendment is an attempt to try to address the problem. I hope that my noble friend will be sympathetic to the intention behind this probing amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Can I assume that reference is being made to the whole group of amendments?
Baroness Cox: I must apologise. At this late hour I forgot to mention that this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 277, 279C, 280 to 282, 284A, 285, 329B and 329C. I apologise for the omission and to any Members of the Committee who may have been inconvenienced.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend. It is already the case that the various duties of local authorities are taken into account when standard spending assessments are calculated. The duty to support SACREs and syllabus conferences is, therefore, already considered by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for the Environment. They must satisfy themselves that sufficient resources are available for local authorities to carry out all their statutory functions. That will continue to be the case.
The corresponding duty of an LEA towards its SACRE and its syllabus conference will remain, along with other residual duties, even when the Funding Agency for Schools has acquired responsibility for school provision in an area. The duty to convene the conference, together with the statutory role of the conference itself, carries with it the necessary implication that the LEA is under a legal duty to fund the entire operation. Similarly, the duty on the LEA to constitute a SACRE and the statutory functions of the SACRE mean that the LEA is under a duty to fund its standing advisory council so as to permit that body to fulfil those functions.
Clause 230 has been carefully drafted to allow adequate but not excessive control over the functions of the SCAA and to ensure that the authority fulfils

1149
the functions for which it is intended. That already includes the requirement to keep under review the whole curriculum.
The responsibility for religious education is a local matter. It is first and foremost for local authorities to ensure that their syllabuses comply with the law. However, I am aware of and share my noble friend's concern about the adequacy of local agreed syllabuses, following the publication of the National Curriculum Council's recent analysis of syllabuses. Too many syllabuses are vague, lack detail and, in effect, present schools with a blank cheque to teach whatsoever they like within religious education, if indeed it is taught at all.
My department issued a letter of guidance to all chief education officers in March 1991, advising that a syllabus should give sufficient detail for it to be clear that the teaching carried out in schools under that syllabus would be consistent with the requirements of the law. The National Curriculum Council's analysis shows that very few post-1988 syllabuses contain sufficient detail to meet the legal requirements. That is a cause for concern, in that authorities have not taken account of our guidance and may therefore be laying themselves open to legal challenge.
The Committee will be aware that this Bill makes provision to oblige all local authorities which have not done so to bring their syllabuses into line with the Education Reform Act. All other authorities will in due course be compelled to review their syllabuses through the proposal for regular five-year reviews. We intend to give further guidance to local bodies to clarify the law in respect of agreed syllabuses to enable them to take informed decisions on these matters. It may be that further analysis of the kind recently carried out by NCC is required, and we will, of course, be considering with Sir Ron Dearing his detailed remit.
It may also be that a mechanism is needed whereby an education authority can request that its syllabus is checked against the legal requirements, or whereby an external body routinely examines all syllabuses as they are reviewed. I am willing to consider that matter further. I hope that, in view of this, and together with my assurance that RE will form part of SCAA's remit, my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate will not press Amendments Nos. 276, 277 and 282.
The right reverend Prelate proposes in new Clause 285 that the SCAA should provide general guidance and advice for agreed syllabus conferences and standing advisory councils, and advise my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State about SACREs' work. As I indicated, I agree that the authority has an important role to play in promoting RE in that way. The NCC has and continues to do much excellent work, such as the guidance it is preparing for agreed syllabus conferences. I am keen to see that work continue as part of the new authority's remit in relation to the whole school curriculum.
The Government agree with one part of new Clause 285: that SACREs' present duty to publish an annual report should be extended to include a duty also to
1150
send a copy to the SCAA. That would give real strength to requests from the authority for copies of annual reports. Amendments Nos. 279C, 329B and 329C together provide for that, and extend the right reverend Prelate's amendment to require SACREs in Wales to send their reports to the Curriculum Council for Wales and in due course to the new Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales when that body is set up next year. The amendment will help SCAA and the Welsh curriculum council in their task.
Government Amendment No. 284A seeks to enable unreasonable decisions taken by SACREs in respect of "determinations" to be remedied. Noble Lords will remember the debate we held on collective worship two weeks ago in the small hours of the morning. I outlined to the Chamber how Parliament introduced the system of determinations in 1988 because it saw that, for some schools, the requirement to provide Christian collective worship would be difficult to reconcile with the family backgrounds, ages and aptitudes of a specific group of pupils or, occasionally, of the whole school.
Where a school has a group of pupils of a specific faith or religion, the headteacher, having consulted the governing body, may apply to the local SACRE to provide alternative worship for that group. The SACRE, in considering the application, is charged to have regard to any relevant circumstances relating to the family backgrounds of the pupils at the school or of the pupils of the particular group in question. This is, of course, a complex decision, and SACREs may not always be right in granting a determination. My noble friend will remember the parent of a child at a school which had been granted a determination recently and who complained to my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, about the collective worship at the school. In considering that complaint it came to light that the local SACRE had granted a determination for the whole school without giving proper consideration to the number of children attending the school whose family background was Christian and in the majority of groupings within the school. That resulted in the children of Christian parents being denied access to the broadly Christian worship which Parliament intended them to have. The SACRE's decision was thus wrong in law.
In such cases, my right honourable friend currently has no power to intervene in a SACRE's decision. We are therefore bringing forward this amendment to enable my right honourable friend to direct a SACRE to review its decision. What is proposed is a power of last resort: we do not anticipate my right honourable friend having frequent occasion to exercise it. But, at present, the only way to challenge a SACRE's decision is to seek a judicial review. That is a costly option for a concerned parent such as the one in the case I have mentioned. The provision in the new clause is, therefore, a necessary and timely alternative course of action for those exceptional cases where a SACRE has acted, or is proposing to act, unreasonably or in default of its duties in this complex area. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Lord Judd: In order to facilitate progress, I hope it is in order to speak to all the amendments in the group

1151
even if that means taking them a little out of order. I hope that we can bear with each other if we do that because it probably will help.
I shall speak, first, to Amendment No. 280. This new clause requires the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that there are sufficient resources available to LEAs to fulfil their statutory duties under the Education Acts with regard to the teaching of religious education and the workings of standing advisory councils on religious education. There has been, and there continues to be, a crisis in the funding of religious education teaching in our schools. Warnings about this have gone unheeded by government Ministers.
Indeed, the matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in the Unstarred Question on religious education in schools debated in the House of Lords on 17th June last year. She quoted from the 1991 report of the Senior Chief Inspector for Schools. The Senior Chief Inspector reported that religious education was taught superficially in many primary schools and in some not taught explicitly at all. For 14 to 16 year-old pupils in secondary schools the entitlement to religious education was often not being met. Only one in three of the schools inspected timetabled religious education under its own name at key Stage 4.
In her response the Minister blamed the lack of financial resources on local decisions.
Baroness Cox: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I would stand corrected, of course, but I do not think I attributed that lack of teaching to lack of resources. I think that it was a matter of other concerns.
Lord Judd: I stand corrected if that is the case. In her response the noble Baroness blamed the lack of financial resources on local decisions. I hope she will forgive me if I suggest that that was perhaps just a little complacent.
It has to be recognised that the LEAs have come under enormous financial restrictions in recent years, and the demands of the national curriculum have sucked in even more resources. However, the Government must recognise that if religious education is to be taught properly in schools, they must provide new sources of finance to LEA schools through which to fulfil those duties. For example, the new requirements on religious education agreed syllabuses in Clause 239 require a review of the syllabus every five years. One medium-sized urban local education authority has estimated the cost of agreeing a new religious education syllabus and providing appropriate in-service training for staff over a five-year period would be £100,000. Where is this money to come from?
The information which I am about to give was compiled by a local authority religious education adviser following a recent conference of advisers and teachers of religious education. The information may be of interest to the Committee. I shall summarise it. A recent problem has been that the demands of the national curriculum are squeezing our religious education. A grant-maintained school in a south west
1152
LEA has gone from 70 candidates for GCSE to zero in one year because pupils can now choose only one subject from a huge option list. A teacher in a comprehensive in a southern LEA had RE lessons taken away from her half-way through a year because pupils were falling behind in national curriculum geography.
Another recent problem is that governors and head teachers are supporting the national curriculum subjects by improving the seniority of teachers in these subjects and therefore reducing the resources going to religious education. There are examples of teachers on "B" and "C" incentive allowances leaving and being replaced by teachers on the standard national scale only. An excellent head of a department of religious education in a southern LEA has taken a post with a local Church of England diocese because she was told that there was no prospect of getting beyond an "A" allowance while she stayed teaching religious education.
Agreed syllabuses are being produced on a shoe string. For example, a northern LEA has seconded an "A" allowance teacher for one year and with no budget to be "administrator" to an agreed syllabus conference. She has been asked to set up and resource from scratch. An outer London LEA has given a commitment to fund an inspector only from GEST on a two-year contract. In almost all schools religious education is given lower capitation than other subjects. In one northern secondary school with more than 1,000 pupils the religious education teacher was given an initial capitation of £900 for the year but then had £300 clawed back part way through the year. This allowance had to pay for exercise books, photocopying, textbooks and so on.
Teachers from many authorities complain about having been disproportionately hit by inspectorate advisory posts being cut back and resource centres closed. Teachers are often dependent on those centres and the advice and training which they are able to provide. Several LEAs are considering reductions—Leicester, Warwickshire, Humberside and Lewisham, for example. Many fears have been expressed about the loss and/or disposal of artefacts, books and slide collections.
Religious education teachers fear that head teachers are becoming reluctant to invest in their continuing in-service education, especially compared with issues like training on appraisal, management and national curriculum subjects. I believe that all this underlines the importance of the amendment. I beg to move.
2 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for highlighting the importance of proper resources being available for religious education. I am not sure how the problem is to be solved, but I recognise the force of a great deal of what he was saying. I was very much encouraged by the Minister's unequivocal statement that the cost of SACREs and agreed syllabus conferences is quite clearly the responsibility of the local education

1153
authority. The question then is where are those resources to come from. I hope that further consideration will be given to that matter.
I thank the Minister for her very clear encouragement and the reassurances which she has given. That means that it is not necessary for me to move my amendments both on agreed syllabuses and on SACREs because all the points are covered either by her assurances or by her own amendments.
Perhaps I may ask two questions as regards Amendment No. 284A which refer to the Secretary of State's new powers to ask a SACRE to reconsider its determination. Under the new Section 12A a complaint can be made by any person, if I have read it right. Is the Secretary of State going to be glad for any person to make a complaint? That seems to be an open invitation to busybodies to start ferreting around and troubling the Secretary of State where it may not be necessary. Have I got that right and is the Minister entirely content with that?
The second question as regards the new amendment is where a SACRE considers whether to make a determination and decides not to. Is that something which is covered by this amendment and the Secretary of State can deal with it? It is not entirely clear from the phrasing of the government amendment whether it covers that particular situation. I shall be grateful for clarification on those two points. In other respects I do not believe that there is any need for me to move the amendments which stand in my name.
Lord Judd: On the point which the right reverend Prelate has raised, perhaps I may support it with a supplementary point. As I understand it—the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will correct me if I am wrong—in June last year she raised the issue of complaints against religious education syllabuses and quoted the experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, herself and Mrs. Bell of Ealing. In her reply the Minister said (at col. 276 of Hansard for 17th June 1992):
"Complaints procedures are designed to allow parents and others to raise objections about the curriculum in schools, including religious education. Complaints must firstly be heard at the local level. That is right given that responsibility lies at that level".
Can the Minister tell us tonight, in pursuing the point raised by the right reverend Prelate, what has happened to change her mind?
Viscount Brentford: Perhaps I may say in one sentence that I was planning to support in principle what my noble friend Lady Cox said. But as I understand that my noble friend the Minister is accepting that principle, I shall not take the matter further.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend for that contribution. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that absolutely nothing has changed. My answer to the particular question of the right reverend Prelate is that, of course, the local machinery must be exhausted first. The complaint would not come to my right honourable friend unless it had been exhausted.
Perhaps I may use again for illustrative purposes the case that has been used before—that of Mrs. Bell.
1154
It was the local SACRE that applied for the determination. It was a local authority that endorsed it and the largest single group in that school were Christians. The determination was applied for for the whole school, and given. So they became judge and jury in their own case. The lady—the parent—had to go to that local authority to make the complaint and the local authority simply did not want to know. It was in that case—and four and a half years later—that that lady, having gone through a considerable amount of intimidation and having been seriously debilitated by the process, had her case thrown out at the end of the day because my right honourable friend did not have the powers to intervene.
We are saying, of course, that the local machinery should be used and we believe that, in most cases, the local machinery would suffice, but when that is exhausted and a complaint comes to my right honourable friend, the power to which I am referring would permit the Secretary of State to intervene where a SACRE acts unreasonably or in default of its duties. In other words, it would have to be proven that it had been unreasonable and acted in default of its duties in respect of determinations lifting the requirements for collective worship to be broadly Christian; and to issue such directions to councils as he thinks expedient. It is an absolute end-of-the-line resort but, after seeing what Mrs. Bell went through, I think that it is very important that no other parent should be intimidated by the process.
Lord Sefton of Garston: It would be highly improper of me to describe proceedings in this Chamber as a farce, but I spent two hours earlier listening to a debate in which moral issues relating to sex were raised. I did not have a particularly firm point of view either way. I certainly did not intend to vote because it was all to do with parents' choice and I am not a parent. During that time, however, hundreds of people must have died in various parts of the world in obscene actions by human beings, and some of them will have died because of religion.
When the 1988 Act was going through this House, I tabled an amendment to the effect that we should have religious education, but that it should not be propaganda or further any particular religion. I wanted children to be taught about religion in all its aspects—all of its bad aspects, as well as all of its good aspects—and I wanted them to be taught about the different religions. Slowly but surely, however, we are getting back to the position where this House (and the Government) are about to resolve that we should be providing religious education only for the Christian religion—and the other religions will be ignored.
A later amendment restricts the study of religion to two or perhaps three—
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. First, we are not talking to that amendment now, although we shall be doing so in a moment. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the law requires that children study Christianity and all other principal religions. That is how the law stands at the moment—
Lord Sefton of Garston: I know how the law stands. I was simply seeking to try to save a little time by trying to group the lot. I tried to give—
Baroness Blatch: No—
Lord Sefton of Garston: Well, if the Minister does not want me to deal with that now, I shall sit down after dealing briefly with what we are talking about. I shall rise again later, and the Committee will sit for longer—
Baroness Blatch: I was not wishing to be discourteous to the noble Lord, but the amendment stands in my noble friend's name and it must be for my noble friend to determine whether she wishes to discuss all of these amendments together, but they relate to very different issues. I shall bow to my noble friend if she wishes it. I think that it is wrong for other members of the Committee to take it upon themselves to group another noble Lord's amendments.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I am tempted to use the word "farce". It is ten minutes past two in the morning and we are probably discussing one of the most moral issues that we could discuss. It is a ridiculous way to conduct our business.
The Committee may not want me to refer to the amendment which is to be moved later because we all know what will happen to it. At half past two in the morning the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will move the amendment and then withdraw it. We shall not vote on it. Here we have been since the previous amendment on which we voted talking about the problems but no decision has been taken. All the amendments have been withdrawn, which is a ridiculous way for this Chamber to conduct its affairs. That is all I am saying.
I did not intend to speak about religion because I spoke about it when we debated the 1988 Act. I was quite content to let the matter go and see whether the people deciding what should be taught in schools had come round to my point of view. Evidently they have not. We shall now revert to the strict teaching of what are called "our principal religions". I shall repeat what I said in 1988. If our principal religions cannot look after their affairs much better than they do—I refer particularly to Northern Ireland—it is about time that we started abolishing religion in our schools and moved to a secular form of education.
Baroness Cox: Perhaps I may return to the amendment which I originally moved. I thank my noble friend for sharing the anxieties which underpinned the amendment, for the undertaking and willingness to consider some of the aspects further and for some of the initiatives which she has already taken. With great gratitude and appreciation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 276A to 277'A not moved.]
Clauses 230 to 236 agreed to.
Clause 237 [Transfer of functions in relation to Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 277B and 278 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 279 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List].
[Amendment No. 279A not moved.]
Clause 237 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 279B not moved.]
Clause 238 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Amendments consequential on section 238]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 279C:
Page 207, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) In section 11(13), for "the Curriculum Council for Wales" there is substituted "the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales".").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 276. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 279D:
Page 207, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert:
("The Charities Act 1993
In Schedule 2 to the Charities Act 1993 (exempt charities) for paragraph (f) there is substituted—
"(f) the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales;" ").
The noble Viscount said: Schedule 14 makes the necessary changes to past legislation resulting from the change of name of the Curriculum Council for Wales to the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales and its Welsh equivalent. The amendment provides for that change to be reflected in the Charities Act 1993. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
2.15 a.m.
Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 280 not moved.]
Clause 239 [Reconsideration of agreed syllabus]:
[Amendments Nos. 281 and 282 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 143, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) at the end of sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted—
"(c) it appears to the authority that the new syllabus has regard to the educational desirability of studying no more than 2, or where the authority are satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances affecting its area, 3 principal religious traditions at a detailed level provided that nothing in this sub-paragraph shall prevent an authority adopting a syllabus requiring at primary level greater concentration on the Christian faith." ").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is another probing amendment. I thank other Members of the Committee who support it. It seeks to ensure that LEAs, when adopting an agreed syllabus for religious education, have regard to the desirability of studying a limited number of faiths in detail rather than a large number of faiths at a superficial level. One of the two or three faiths studied will be Christianity and the amendment specifically allows a more detailed study of Christianity to take place at the primary stage.
There is a growing recognition among colleagues in religious education that for the sake of academic and theological rigour, there should be limits on the number of faiths to be studied in detail. It is perhaps

1157
relevant to note that the Schools Examination and Assessment Council has, in its new criteria for GCSE religious studies, limited to two the maximum number of faiths that pupils should study. The Board of Education of the General Synod has endorsed the view:
"that for any school to study more than three religions could risk a trivialisation of those faiths by not treating each one with the seriousness, depth and respect it deserves".
Moreover, the recent report from the National Curriculum Council has shown that it would be helpful for LEAs to receive guidance on the number of faiths to be taught in detail. That NCC report names 12 LEAs which put no limit on the number of faiths to be studied by five year-olds. A letter to The Times on 10th April of this year signed by 30 members of the General Synod—that is over 10 per cent, of the House of Laity—described that approach as "bad educational practice". Because the matter is so serious, perhaps I may quote briefly from that letter:
"Although less than 4 per cent, of the population adhere to a non-Christian faith we believe that young people should learn about the important non-Christian faiths represented in Great Britain. It is better to do this at the secondary stage and to ensure that all young people study one faith or, exceptionally, two faiths coherently and in detail, with introductory work on other faiths.
Instead of this, many diocesan advisers have been backing syllabuses which set no limit on the number of faiths to be studied, even for children as young as five. This is bad educational practice and leads to teaching which tends to trivialise all faiths".
That point was also well made in this Chamber some years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, when he quoted the present Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:
"It happens with the best of intentions … a touch of Christianity; a dash of Judaism; a slice of Islam; and so on through a fruit cocktails of world faiths … In trying to teach all faiths, it is possible that we succeed in teaching none".
This is such a serious matter that I must briefly underline the three anxieties which underpin the amendment. First, there is anxiety about the approach to the teaching of RE which has been characterised as the thematic multi-faith approach where themes or concepts are taken out of the context of major faiths and looked at in terms of superficial similarities; for example, spring festivals, fire or water. That leads to excessive superficiality because such concepts taken out of context cannot deal adequately with the complexity of theological systems of belief of major world religions. For example, one book which was widely used in that context, Beginning Religion, dealt with the Lord's Prayer on the same page as shamanism. A further example is that British pupils from British homes, when they were coming up to school-leaving age, still did not know the four Gospels, who the disciples were or who Pontius Pilate was and, as someone said, would not even know how to spell the latter's name. That really matters, not just because, primarily, Christianity is the main historical heritage of this land, but also because, without such knowledge, our young people cannot appreciate our cultural heritage. They cannot appreciate our art, literature or architecture; nor can they appreciate our
1158
social and political heritage which has largely been shaped over the centuries by Christian traditions and inspired by Christian ideals.
It is also significant to note that many parents of children from non-Christian traditions often choose to send their children to Christian-denominational schools. That is partly because they appreciate the fact that those schools transmit spiritual and moral values which they greatly appreciate, and partly because they are keen for their children to become acquainted with the religious tradition which has shaped the history of the land in which they now live.
Finally, and just by way of a reminder of an important caveat, it is important to remember that parents who do not want their children to study RE can always exercise their right of withdrawal. Moreover, in the 1988 Act there was the historic decision for pupils from other faiths, when they are present in sufficient or significant numbers, to have a religious education which reflects their own religious adherence. That was a very important right for representatives of non-Christian faith communities.
In conclusion, I should point out that the amendment deals specifically with RE teaching in primary schools. In that context, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, in his preface to the forthcoming Church of England's schools handbook, articulated the point underlying the amendment. When speaking for the great majority of children in this country who do not come from families of non-Christian faiths and about the limits on the number of faiths that should be taught in primary schools, he said that,
"young children should first be given a firm and unapologetic grounding in their own culture and in the religion of their parents, and only later be encouraged to compare and contrast other cultures and faiths. The stage of critical understanding requires maturity. If it comes too soon the child is exposed to a bewilderingly complex world before it has had time to establish its own personal and social identity".
I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will respond sympathetically to the ideas underpinning the amendment which is designed to encourage syllabus conferences and LEAs to follow a more rigorous approach academically and theologically than the superficial approach which pertains too often at the moment and which can destroy the integrity and the coherence of any, and of all, faiths. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: When I first read the amendment I was a little worried, but as the noble Baroness's approach is primarily a probing one, my initial worries have been put to rest. The noble Baroness has a point here in so far as there is a certain limit as to how much you can do. However, there is a danger that the amendment is a little over-prescriptive in that it says that there should be a fixed limit. I have in mind the point about two religions. For example, if you try to include different types of religion, such as Hinduism, with one of the one-deity religions, you will have two very different contrasts. Indeed, there is a variety of contrasts across the board. There are different approaches within certain types of educational tradition which might have more similar origin. But, there again, that is possibly far too academic a point to take up with children at the first stage of

1159
secondary school. It will be interesting to hear from the Government exactly how far they think this type of study should be spread and to what level it would be appropriate for it to mean anything to any of the children involved.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Many of us were most concerned when this Chamber agreed in the Education Reform Act 1988 that local agreed syllabuses should be required to reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian, while taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain. It was the first time that the Christian religion had been mentioned in religious education legislation. That appeared to some of us an unnecessary narrowing of religious education. It was particularly worrying to Humanists like me who feel that religious education is a matter for the home and the Church and not for our schools.
This amendment confirms our fears that there will be continuing restrictions. Restricting study to two or, in exceptional circumstances, three religions shows a narrowness of view which should not apply to religious education of all subjects.
Section 8(3) of the 1988 Act specifically refers to the need to secure breadth, balance and flexibility. This permits our schools to teach about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and other world religions; and, in my view, rightly so.
One of my regrets is that Humanism is not given its proper place. Children ought to be told that some people base their lives on moral standards which are not related to a god. This amendment will almost certainly cause difficulties with the existing arrangements. It will restrict the freedom enjoyed by locally based agreed syllabus conferences and threaten the good will that leads to their decisions. It would also reduce the representative composition of agreed syllabus conferences and therefore would also endanger relationships within local communities. I can think of little more disastrous than that in the field of religion.
It is interesting that letters have been received from organisations as disparate as the British Humanist Association and the Professional Religious Education Group. That latter group incidentally comprises five organisations concerned with religious education. I think I am correct in saying that they cover the whole area in the teaching of religious education. Among other things they say:
"It could generate reactions damaging to and within Christianity, not least because its reference to primary pupils and Christianity could be read to indicate aims which are other than educational".
Surely that would be a matter of considerable anxiety to Christians. That is a pretty damning statement to make about the amendment, particularly as it appears to come from people who are Christians.
One of the great attributes of this Chamber is its tolerance and libertarian views. I find it difficult to believe that this restrictive proposal would be acceptable and I hope that the amendment will be rejected overwhelmingly.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: This amendment arises out of a very proper concern to avoid superficiality in the study of religion. Trying to cover Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and so on, can result in doing little more than giving a cursory glance at each and giving the impression that these are all of equal significance or insignificance in the history, culture and tradition of the nation. We should avoid superficiality with its risk of trivialisation. Having said that, I must say I am not content to go along with this amendment as it stands. I am not convinced that it is suitable for primary legislation.
Perhaps I can give my reasons. First, what I think we want to achieve is that so far as possible—the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, quoted the Archbishop of York on this issue—each young person should have the opportunity of studying his or her own religion. If we are familiar with and confident in our own tradition, we are more likely to be openminded and perceptive of other people's traditions. Which religions should be studied and how many? Surely that depends upon the cultural and faith background of the people in the locality and in any particular school. To be prescriptive by laying down that there should be only two and perhaps three religions taught could easily be far too narrow for the position in a number of schools.
Secondly, I think that all young people should have the opportunity of studying Christianity whether they belong to another faith or none because this is the faith and culture which has been and is most influential in our national heritage and identity. If we do not have a working knowledge of Christianity, we shall be inadequately equipped to understand much of British history, literature and art.
Thirdly, much depends on the way in which religions are taught to young people. In studying two or three religions, young people should be encouraged to recognise that they are indicative of a number of other religions. Someone who studies two or three languages often develops linguistic skills which enables him to appreciate and understand many other languages. But if a linguist tries to study all languages at once, he usually becomes a walking Tower of Babel. It is neither necessary nor practical to encourage young people to study all religions, provided that when they are being taught fewer religions they are encouraged to recognise that that gives them an opportunity to have an insight into a number of other traditions and religions.
Fourthly, I am not happy with the amendment, because it presupposes that all religious education will be carried out by studying separate religions. In general terms I support that approach which I believe to be the proper one. But there are some stages and some contexts in which the thematic approach is appropriate. Studying prayer across the religions can be instructive. The amendment too readily presupposes that such an approach is unacceptable.
My fifth reason—this touches upon what the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, has said—is that I am anxious about so soon adjusting the 1988 religious education settlement which was reached after considerable difficulty. We need to give more time to

1161
what was then agreed. Let us ensure that religious education is given by qualified and experienced teachers and that it is securely funded and resourced. Let us deepen young people's understanding of the spiritual and moral dimension of life. But I believe it is better not to risk—if I may term it such—this rather restrictive amendment. We might find that it is acceptable to move in this direction, at any rate to the extent of saying that at any one key stage there should not be more than two or three religions studied. If there could be flexibility between one key stage and another, that might give us greater versatility without risking superficiality. I understand the reasons for the amendment, but for the reasons I have given I am not entirely happy with it as it stands.
2.30 a.m.
Lord Judd: It is always good to hear the right reverend Prelate. His clarity and generosity are welcome. I wish we heard him more often during these long nights, because I always find what he says challenging. We must recognise that there is considerable anxiety about the real significance of the amendment. The second line of paragraph (c) contains the phrase "educational desirability". But what is the case for claiming that there is educational desirability in studying no more than two or three religious traditions at a detailed level? The history orders, for example, expect children at Key Stage 2 to study Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Ancient Greeks, Tudors, Stuarts, Victorians, Aztecs, and a
"past non-European society chosen from Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Syria, the Indus Valley, The Maya, Benin".
It is possible that the amendment greatly underestimates the ability of young children to study religions.
There are a number of schools in a multi-racial area such as Southall where the make up of the school population is roughly 56 per cent. Sikh; 20 per cent. Hindu; 12 per cent. Moslem; and 2 per cent, other, including Christian. The amendment would entail the religion of 12 per cent, of those schools' populations (the Moslems) being all but ignored, even though Islam is the second biggest of the world's religious faiths and the second biggest religious tradition in Great Britain. There are more Moslems today than there are Methodists. Presumably, a similar situation can be found all over the West Midlands and in Yorkshire.
Furthermore, the amendment could lead also to Judaism slipping off schools' schemes of work, despite the historic importance of Judaism, and the importance many Christian educators would place upon children understanding Judaism as a necessary background to understanding Christianity. When considering her response, it is important that the Minister takes into account not only what is being said in this Chamber but what is being said by those outside.
I have received a number of powerful letters on the amendment. With the leave of the Committee, I wish to share a few of those letters with members of the Committee. The first is from the Professional Religious Education Group, an impressive body
1162
which has among its Christian members people who come from the evangelical and liberal traditions. I know that the Minister will recall the interesting meeting we had in her office some months ago with representatives of that organisation.
My noble friend has already quoted from this letter. However, I wish to give two other brief quotations. In referring to the amendment, the letter states:
"It would fundamentally alter the framework of RE set up in Section 8.3 of the 1988 Act (its breadth, balance, and flexibility). It would undoubtedly marginalise Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and other principal world religions present in Britain, any of which might not achieve 'second place' to Christianity".
Among other arguments, the letter continues:
"It has the potential to cause division and disruption of inter-faith and other relationships, both nationally within the religious and secular mix of our society and locally in SACREs, ASCs, and local communities (including parents, governors, and teachers)".
I have also received a letter from the Free Church Federal Council. The representatives of the Free Church state in their letter:
"This clause is modelled on the proposals relating to the GCSE criteria for the number of religions to be studied academically for examination purposes at the age of 16. It is totally inappropriate to include the restrictions of two or in exceptional circumstances three religions. It is not rational for two reasons".
The letter continues:
"Firstly, although one does not want to encourage superficiality in religious education, pupils ought to be introduced to certain basic facts about the major religions other than Christianity which they will encounter either amongst their fellow pupils or as they read the press or later in life travel for business or pleasure".
The representatives conclude their observations by saying:
"It would be extremely difficult to uphold in certain areas of the country particularly the limited choice of two, or even three exceptionally, religions without causing religious and cultural offence since one of the religions must always be Christianity in accordance with the ERA Clause 8/".
Before concluding I must read from another letter which impressed me greatly. It comes from the National Council of Hindu Temples. Mr Deepak Naik states:
"Amendment No. 283 referring to Page 143, line 46 of the Bill. The force of this amendment would be to alter current interpretations of Clause 8.3 of the Education Reform Act. Currently it is expected that all new religious education syllabuses should cover Christianity and the other principal religions represented in Great Britain. The force of the proposed amendment would be to allow Agreed Syllabus conferences to interpret Clause 8.3 differently preventing the detailed study of no more than two or possibly three principal religious traditions. The adoption of this Clause could marginalise a religion like Hinduism which we believe should be properly understood by all young people growing up in this society. What hope can there be for good community relations without the possibility of mutual understanding generated by good education? We are not in the business of converting pupils to Hinduism, but are concerned that all young people in our society should have some understanding of our ancient tradition and know something of the people who practise that tradition in Britain".
In his earlier observations, my noble friend Lord Sefton spoke about the damage that has been done to human relations in the name of religion. I suggest that we have tried to introduce, by legislation already in place, an approach to religious education which means education in depth, in perspective, which takes a broad look at what religion means and involves and

1163
which examines and respects the sincerity of people who come from other traditions. Anything which could curb that or narrow it would be unfortunate. I urge the Minister to reject the amendment.
Lord Sefton of Garston: This was the debate that I tried to short-circuit, but here I am starting it. I could have said what I wanted to say at that time but I was not able to. I remember one other occasion when we were discussing education. It was moved that I be no longer heard. I did not know why. I accepted that it was perfectly in order, but it drove me to table an amendment later to make sure that I would be heard.
I think that the Companion for this Chamber is absolutely right. It advises against the preparation of written speeches and people then coming here and reading them, whatever anyone else had said. That was why the debate this afternoon—I thought it was this afternoon; it was at half-past 10 at night—went on so long and the mover of the appropriate amendment said that people had come here having prepared a written speech but they had not heard what he was saying. That is why I do not have a written speech.
Now that we have had the debate I should like to pick up some of the points. First, I shall give a quotation from this organisation which is new to me, the Professional Religious Education Group, referring to the amendment:
"If unchanged, it could lead to segregation of schools upon racial or religious lines, and exacerbate local division and mistrust".
That is because the new amendment seeks to take away the local control, and that is the danger in it.
Perhaps I may go on to a wider field. The right reverend Prelate thinks that a person should study his or her own religion. I do not know exactly what he meant. A person may be born a Catholic, a Christian, a Methodist or something else. What is "his or her religion"? It is what society has taught a child, and it has never really understood any of the problems. It is the religion that it is supposed to have. A child of five goes to school and is asked: "What are you, a Christian?" He answers, "I'm a Catholic" or "a Protestant". The child is no such thing; our society brought it into the faith and that is where the division first started. The finest words of wisdom that have been spoken on Northern Ireland were by a 14 year-old Catholic girl. After a tremendous massacre, she and a Protestant girl decided that no longer would they go to school in segregated buses. That has been the problem.
I said that this situation would happen. We have had an echo tonight of what happened over the Education Reform Act 1988. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, moved an amendment; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London opposed it and asked her to withdraw it because he realised that it was so over the top that it would introduce animosity to many people who would not otherwise suffer it. Now we have it again. The noble Baroness proposes something; the right reverend Prelate advises her in almost the same words, "Don't press it. It is going too
1164
far. Let's move slowly". We shall move in this direction, but let us not move so quickly that we offend anyone else. That is the whole principle.
At the end of the day both my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Dormand have referred to what will happen. The amendment will minimise all the other religions. We may say that that is not important in regard to our country. It may not be, but our world is global. I tried to point out earlier, while we were discussing moral attitudes in relation to sexual conduct, that there were remarkable actions going on all over the world which we have not even bothered to debate. At the basis of it all, one can see religion and nationalism, and they threaten the very existence of this world. Whenever one sees the new movements breaking up a country, one always sees the Churches. If we give the impression that we can retain our own Christianity without having a human attitude to morality, then we shall never live in the world, and the world will never be at peace.
I do not know whether the noble Lord the Chief Whip wants to say something. He is looking at me and pulling a face. Does the noble Lord want to say something? If he does not, he should not be looking at me and pulling faces like that. If the noble Lord wants to say something, he should say it —I do not mind how much time it will take. The attitude is the same. The noble Lord just walked into the Chamber and heard only half of what had been said, but because he does not think it is right, he expresses his disfavour. That happens over and over again. People do not even think about what they say. Out of courtesy, I shall conclude on this note, but I could go on for much longer.
Tremendously important issues face the whole world. If we are part of that world, then we have to examine the real problems. Those problems, by and large, stem from the religions that have no scientific basis. They are merely repetitions of myths, most of which are untrue. None can be demonstrated to be true. Certainly the history of the religions of this world has demonstrated that if they are anything at all, they are downright wicked.
2.45 a.m.
Viscount Brentford: It is very important that young people study the Christian and non-Christian faiths in a way which respects their coherence and integrity. I believe that that is exactly what the right reverend Prelate was saying; namely, that we need to avoid superficiality. I say to him that the reason this amendment is being brought forward is that experience over the past four or five years has shown that many of the young people who are being taught in this way have acquired only a muddle and mish-mash from five or six different religions, and they cannot get the basics of any of them.
Something along the lines of this amendment is called for as a result of the experience that has been gained. That is why I wish to support the principle of what my noble friend Lady Cox pushes for in this probing amendment. We want the boys and girls to understand something of the non-Christian, as well as the Christian, faiths. I believe it is better to study just

1165
two or three others in detail—perhaps we can be a bit more flexible than this amendment—rather than give them the superficial treatment that has gone on in too many schools recently.
Baroness Blatch: I too join with my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Brentford, and the right reverend Prelate, in believing that in this amendment my noble friend was concerned to avoid superficiality and what we have come to know as muddle and mish-mash, but also to take proper account of how much a pupil can absorb, especially younger children.
The arrangements set in place in 1988 have several advantages that would be lost by the adoption of this amendment. The Government are committed to the position of religious education as a subject for local determination. Local conferences should have flexibility in drawing up a syllabus that best meets the needs of their local community. That may be a local community where, even within a single school, many different religious traditions are represented. I do not think that it would be helpful to such schools to be required to teach a syllabus that failed to offer even the opportunity to address many of those religions. We should not restrict local autonomy more than is necessary.
The requirements of the 1988 Act with regard to content complement this local flexibility. The position of Christianity is quite rightly already of central importance in the teaching of RE. While this amendment refers specially to this issue, the Committee should have no fears on that score. But, as well as securing the place of Christianity, the 1988 Act requires that local conferences should take account of the practices and teachings of the other principal religions in this country in drawing up a syllabus. That is an important requirement. It ensures that, in the spirit of this country's belief in religious tolerance, all our school children are able to learn and appreciate something of each other's beliefs in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
The law at present requires syllabuses to include all principal religions. An agreed syllabus which covers the period from age 5 to age 18 should ensure that by the time children reach the end of their school education they have at least a basic knowledge of all the major religions, in addition to a more detailed knowledge of Christianity, which lies at the heart of British culture.
I accept that at any particular stage of education it may be appropriate for children to concentrate on fewer religious traditions. Such an approach seems to me more likely to ensure that they will learn about each religion as an integral study rather than acquiring a confused ragbag of knowledge about all religions but being unable to distinguish between them. We plan to make that point in guidance issued after this Bill has completed its passage through Parliament.
But that does not mean that we should seek so to inhibit syllabus conferences that pupils will end their education knowing next to nothing about certain religions. That would be contrary to the 1988 arrangements and contrary to our hopes for a tolerant and understanding society.
1166
What is important in the teaching of religious education is the integrity of each religion. That integrity should be preserved. The plea of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, was for the inclusion of humanism. Humanism is not a religion. It does not achieve the objective of enhancing the spirituality and spiritual dimension for young people.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. She is absolutely right in what she says. There is a certain illogicality in claiming that humanism is a religion in so far as humanists reject religion. However, I hope she will agree that for young people—the right reverend Prelate, the Minister and other noble Lords have said so—there should be teaching of the other religions of the world. It seems to me that it would be very proper for the children in our schools to be given some account of what humanism is about. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point as well.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry but I have to differ from the noble Lord. I do not believe that humanism is a religion, and we are here talking of religious education. I do not believe that it achieves the objective of enhancing the spiritual dimension and spirituality of young people.
As I was about to say to my noble friend, the amendment contains a technical difficulty in that it would apply as drafted only to the case where an agreed syllabus conference recommends that an existing syllabus should remain in force.
My noble friend argued strongly that we should address that point further. I shall do so gladly. I shall look particularly at whether guidance will be sufficient to address the point, which I know was raised by the right reverend Prelate, that the number of religions studied in depth at any one time should be manageable. In the light of that promise I expect my noble friend not to press the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. It is probing amendment and therefore somewhat of a learning exercise. I am pleased to learn from every contribution that is made. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his sympathy with the essence of the amendment in so far as it tries to avoid superficiality in the study of major world religions which trivialises them. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brentford who pointed out that again the heart of the amendment was not a lack of respect for different faiths but that it was precisely respect for them that prompted us to put forward this recommendation. It was to prevent superficiality and to prevent studying so much at once that young people would become confused and not appreciate the significance of the complexity of major world faiths.
That was the focus of our concern; namely, that we wanted to do justice to various world religions and respect them. This is a probing amendment and we are sympathetic to variations on the theme of our concerns and particularly sympathetic to the idea that perhaps there would be a serial study. There should be a limit on how many world religions should be studied

1167
at any one point in time rather than an overall limit which might be—I sincerely accept—a deprivation in that it reduced young people's understanding of the other major world religions, especially those whose communities are living in this country at the present time.
I conclude by thanking my noble friend sincerely for her undertaking that she will consider whether there are ways in which she might bring forward the spirit of the amendment. With that appreciation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 284 not moved.]
Clause 239 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 284A:
After Clause 239, insert the following new clause:
Power of Secretary of State to direct SACRE to revoke
determination or discharge duty
(". After section 12 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (determination by advisory councils) there is inserted—
"Power of Secretary of State to direct advisory council to
revoke determination or discharge duty.
12A.—(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied, either on complaint by any person or otherwise, that any standing advisory council on religious education—

(a) have acted, or are proposing to act, unreasonably in determining for the purposes of subsection (1) or (5) of section 12 of this Act whether it is appropriate for the requirement for Christian collective worship to apply in the case of any school or any class or description of pupils at a school, or

(b) have failed to discharge any duty imposed under that section,

he may give the council such directions as to the revocation of the determination or the withdrawal of the proposed determination or (as the case may be) the discharge of the duty as appear to him to be expedient; and the council shall comply with the directions.
(2) Directions under subsection (1) above may provide for the making by the council of a new determination to take effect in place of the determination or proposed determination to be revoked or withdrawn by them.
(3) In this section, "requirement for Christian collective worship" means the requirement imposed by section 7(1) of this Act or, as the case may be, section 131(2) of the Education Act 1993." "). The noble Baroness said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 276. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 285 not moved.]
Clause 240 [Arrangements for admissions]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 285A:
Page 144, line 13, leave out ("approved by the Secretary of State") and insert ("made by a local education authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 285A I shall speak also to Amendments No. 285B, 285C, 285D, 285E, 285F, 285G, 285H and 285J.
The purpose of the amendment is to take the Secretary of State's power to make arrangements for co-ordinating the admission of pupils to LEA maintained and grant-maintained schools and to replace it with the local education authority exercising that power.
The LEA has been responsible for co-ordinating the admission arrangements for county and voluntary schools for nearly 50 years. That has been successfully
1168
done, on the whole, with over 90 per cent, of parents receiving their first choice of a secondary school. Re-organisation of the education system with the invention of grant-maintained schools has reduced the proportion of parents achieving their first choice, and with unfortunate consequences as were seen in Bromley and Hillingdon last summer, where children were offered places at schools often many miles from their homes when it was likely that a place would eventually be found at a much nearer grant-maintained school.
The purpose of the amendment is to replace the power of the Secretary of State with that of the LEA. The LEAs have a proven track-record in co-ordinating admission arrangements between the schools and should be allowed to continue that role. It is preposterous to imagine that the Secretary of State will have the local and detailed knowledge with which to impose a co-ordinated admission arrangement scheme between LEA and grant-maintained schools. It is much better that a locally elected, democratic body with a local knowledge should determine how the admissions arrangements should be co-ordinated.
The Government have recognised that there are limits to the powers of the Secretary of State as shown by the amendments to Clause 244, where the Secretary of State will no longer be required to supply names of people who sit on admission appeals committees. If the limits of the Secretary of State's power have been recognised, why do the Government wish to impose the Secretary of State's solution on what should be a local matter; namely, the arrangements for the admission to schools?
The amendments have the support of the Association of County Councils, the Association of London Authorities, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the London Boroughs Association. In other words, they cover all political shades of opinion in local government. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It is the Government's policy to encourage voluntary co-ordination of admission arrangements between LEAs and GM schools—which is, of course, possible under existing legislation.
The background to our proposals in Clause 240 is the problems experienced by parents in Bromley and Hillingdon last summer. But we should keep those in their proper perspective. The problems were concentrated in a handful of LEAs and affected a few hundred pupils, all of whom were offered places by Easter. The problems were not without a silver lining; valuable lessons were learned by the schools and LEAs concerned. The consequence has been that, for this year's admission round, co-ordinated arrangements have been developed and implemented by the LEAs and GM schools themselves on a voluntary basis—in Bromley and Hillingdon, and in other areas, too. Those voluntary arrangements appear to have worked more smoothly, although, inevitably, there were still some teething problems. The department is keeping a close eye on voluntary arrangements already in place, with a view to propagating good practice. It is organising a conference in June for

1169
LEAs and grant-maintained schools that have been involved in arrangements so that they can discuss their experiences and outline possible ways forward.
I am optimistic that the majority of co-ordinated arrangements will work perfectly well without the need for any central intervention. But I recognise that we cannot rely solely on voluntary arrangements. The Secretary of State's power to impose co-ordinated arrangements on a group of admission authorities is designed as a last resort to be used when admission authorities are unable to agree co-ordinated arrangements in an area when they are clearly necessary. Clause 240 will also give the Secretary of State the power to impose common arrangements on all, or certain categories, of admission authorities.
The noble Lord's proposed amendments would remove all the Secretary of State's powers relating to co-ordinated admission arrangements, and would transfer them to the LEA. This would mean that the party making the final decisions in cases where agreement could not be reached would not be an impartial outside observer, but one of the interested parties involved in the dispute. These amendments would give LEAs power to impose their own arrangements on grant-maintained schools, which should no longer be under the control of LEAs. I cannot accept these amendments. As I have already said, it is important that the Secretary of State should have a reserve power to impose co-ordinated arrangements where agreement at local level has proved impossible. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed; and if it is, that it will be rejected.
3 a.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I shall not be pressing the amendment to a Division tonight, although I have to say that I am disappointed with the reply we have received. The idea that the Secretary of State will be more impartial than the locally elected authority when dealing with these problems is something I find slightly difficult to believe. Nevertheless, given the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 285B to 285J not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 286:
Page 145, line 10, at end insert:
(" () After section 7(4) of the Education Act 1980 (appeals against admission decisions) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) The local education authority shall be responsible for meeting all costs and expenses incurred by an appeal committee established to hear appeals in respect of schools maintained by it and shall indemnify the members of any such appeal committee against all costs and liabilities which they may incur in respect of any action taken or decision made by them acting as such member in good faith.".").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 287B. These two amendments deal with the cost of appeals against exclusions and admissions decisions in aided schools. I think I am right in saying that the
1170
1980 Act required the admission appeal committees to be set up and the 1986 Act required exclusion appeal committees to be set up. They are committees neither of the governing body nor of the local education authority and there is doubt therefore as to who should meet the costs.
There is the further point of indemnity should litigious parents take the appeal committee to court. It seems reasonable to ask the local education authority to meet these costs although I recognise that the LEA will want some kind of control over matters such as travelling expenses and legal advice. I am not quite sure how this is to be obtained. I move the amendment because there seems to be a grey area and I think that we need something in black and white. I therefore move it in the hope of eliciting a response from the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I can give the right reverend Prelate something of an assurance. We accept in principle the main purpose of these amendments—to protect appeal committee members from legal costs associated with their decisions. But as currently drafted the amendments themselves would require LEAs and governing bodies to reimburse any expenses which members incur. We do not accept the principle that LEAs and governing bodies should be required to reimburse all costs other than legal costs incurred by members of appeal committees. This might, for example, be taken to include generous attendance allowances and claims for loss of earnings.
We will therefore accept the principle, as limited as I have described, of these amendments and will table government amendments at Report stage. Parallel amendments will also apply to grant-maintained schools which are not in fact covered by the right reverend Prelate's amendments. With that assurance I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I look forward to having sight of the amendments in order that they can be considered and understood by our officials. In the light of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 240 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 287 not moved.]
Clauses 241 to 244 agreed to.
Schedule 15 [School admission appeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 287ZA:
Page 207, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("and") and insert ("who are eligible to be lay members").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 158A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 287ZB:
Page 208, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("and") and insert ("who are eligible to be lay members").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 287ZC:
Page 208, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 209 and insert:

1171
("Lay members 4A.—(1) A person is eligible to be a lay member for the purposes of paragraphs 1(2) (a) and 2(2) (a) above if—

(a) he is a person without personal experience in the management of any school or the provision of education in any school (otherwise than as a governor or in any other voluntary capacity), and

(b) he satisfies the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (2) below.

(2) Those conditions are—

(a) in the case of a person to be nominated as a lay member for the purposes of paragraph 1(2) (a) above, that he does not have, or has not at any time had, any connection with—

(i) the local education authority in question, or

(ii) any person who is a member of, or employed by, that authority,

of a kind which might reasonably be taken to raise doubts about his ability to act impartially in relation to the authority, and

(b) in the case of a person to be nominated as a lay member for the purposes of paragraph 2(2) (a) above, that he does not have, or has not at any time had, any connection with—

(i) the school in question, or

(ii) any person who is a member of, or employed by, the governing body of that school,

of a kind which might reasonably be taken to raise doubts about his ability to act impartially in relation to the school.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 287ZD:
Page 208, line 41, leave out ("Secretary of State's") and insert ("local authority's").
The noble Lord said: The effect of Amendments Nos. 287ZD, 287ZE and 287ZF, would be to transfer responsibility for the keeping of a list of lay members from the Secretary of State to the local authority in respect of LEA-maintained schools. The Bill proposes that all admission appeal committees should have one lay member. The Bill does not suggest how "lay member" will be defined. Admission appeal committees are already independent of the LEA. Their membership is comprised of a mixture of members of the authority and other people with educational experience or local knowledge, which can include parents.
Existing legislation already ensures that there should be at least one person who is not a member of the authority on an appeal committee, but who has local knowledge or expertise. The code of practice issued by the local authority associations and approved by the Ombudsman and the Council on Tribunals, also suggests that a local authority should maintain a panel of names from which members of appeal committees can be drawn.
It is not clear that the proposal in the Bill would add much to existing arrangements other than an extra layer of red tape. Every summer, thousands of admissions appeals are held: some authorities will hear upwards of 1000 each. For hearings related to an individual school, the membership of the panel must be constant. The same group of people may have to hear 50 or 100 or more appeals for one school alone.
1172
The timetabling of these hearings already presents a formidable challenge. Arrangements must be as convenient as possible for parents, but are inevitably also dictated by the availability of panel members who are not paid for this often stressful work. I can bear that out from my own local authority experience.
For this reason, authorities need to have considerable flexibility in making nominations to committees. Last-minute substitutes may sometimes need to be made. What must not be allowed to happen is that an authority is unable to arrange hearings, or must cancel them, because no-one is available from the Secretary of State's list and no nominees can be approved and processed by the DFE quickly enough which may occasionally mean in a day or less.
It is not clear how the Secretary of State will exercise his control over the list and, in particular, what criteria will be used in judging whether a nominee is "lay". Presumably, however, the Secretary of State will be using open, objective criteria to judge the laity. Why not, then, allow LEAs to apply these? This would allow authorities to keep lists up-to-date and sufficient for their needs at all times. The alternative is unnecessary centralisation of the process. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that I am able to help the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, because I do not believe that he has picked up that I actually made amendments on 27th April, and tabled amendments to Schedules 5 and 15. They removed the requirement that lay members of admission appeal committees must be appointed from a list drawn up by the Secretary of State. The Government believed that the requirement to appoint lay members from a central list was too bureaucratic, just as the noble Lord has suggested, and that it would be more within the spirit of local management to allow admission authorities to make their own choice, subject of course to certain safeguards designed to help to ensure that the individual is truly independent. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord's amendments have been superseded by those amendments. With that, I hope he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am most grateful. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 287ZE and 287ZF not moved.]
[Amendment No. 287 A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clauses 245 and 246 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 287B not moved.]
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House Resumed.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past three o'clock.

  STERLING'S SUSPENSION FROM THE ERM: IMPACT
  STERLING'S SUSPENSION FROM THE ERM: IMPACT
  ERM AND INFLATION: GOVERNMENT POLICY
  ERM AND INFLATION: GOVERNMENT POLICY
  N.I. INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES: SHAREHOLDING LIMIT
  N.I. INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES: SHAREHOLDING LIMIT
  ROAD SCHEMES: CYCLISTS' NEEDS
  ROAD SCHEMES: CYCLISTS' NEEDS
  TURKISH GOVERNMENT: LEGAL ACTION
  TURKISH GOVERNMENT: LEGAL ACTION
  TURKISH-KURD CEASEFIRE
  TURKISH-KURD CEASEFIRE
  SOUTHERN IRAQ
  SOUTHERN IRAQ
  SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO: SANCTIONS ENFORCEMENT
  SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO: SANCTIONS ENFORCEMENT
  CAMBODIA
  CAMBODIA
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE SHEEP DIPS: EXPOSURE SURVEILLANCE
  ORGANOPHOSPHATE SHEEP DIPS: EXPOSURE SURVEILLANCE
  IACS SCHEME
  IACS SCHEME
  RECAPTURE ATTEMPTS, GROUP 4 PRISONERS: POLICE TIME
  RECAPTURE ATTEMPTS, GROUP 4 PRISONERS: POLICE TIME
  PRISONERS' RELIGIONS
  PRISONERS' RELIGIONS
  DOMESTIC WORKERS FROM OVERSEAS
  DOMESTIC WORKERS FROM OVERSEAS
  DOGS: SEIZURE AND DETENTION
  DOGS: SEIZURE AND DETENTION
  JOINT COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  JOINT COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS