Sitting of 13 May 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Robert James Adley, Esquire, Member for Christchurch. I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss that we have sustained. We send our sympathy to the relatives of the hon. Member.
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read to be read a Second time on Monday 17 May at Seven o'clock.
  CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
    EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

      WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 May.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time. Debate to be resumed on Thursday 20 May.
  CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords) (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Child Abuse
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the results of the independent research he has commissioned on the use of video-recorded evidence in child abuse cases; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): We expect to receive the results in January 1995.
    Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend aware that, up to last month, there were only seven examples of the use of video evidence in child abuse cases? Does he agree that this form of evidence giving not only enhances the prospect of a safe conviction, but involves minimum extra trauma for the children concerned? Will he seek to promote it, and also consider its relevance to other offences—for example, rape?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. I know that he has campaigned assiduously in his constituency. Let me update him: pre-recorded pre-trial interviews with children have now been presented as evidence in 22 cases, and to date none has been refused. I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering the development of this important way of giving evidence. A new pack has been issued to help and educate children in the act of giving witness evidence; once we know more about this method—which is the aim of the report—we shall consider extending it in due course.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister pass my congratulations to his interdepartmental team, and in particular to the Department of Health? They have done some very good work.
    Will the Minister go a step further? Does he accept that there is a great deal of concern about the disparate quality of research? Will he try to pull the research together in a national centre, and perhaps set up regional centres for both abusers and, more important, the abused? If he were prepared to do that—or, at least, to undertake to review the policy—he would bring great relief to the hundreds of thousands of victims of child and, indeed, sexual abuse, whose lives are being blighted.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his responsible attitude to this development, which is a product of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I know from my visits to, for example, the Kent police's vulnerable victims suite that many police forces are now developing a particularly sympathetic and careful way of dealing with such evidence, and I am sure that they will discover more cases of child abuse as a result. Much of what has been done now needs to be evaluated; during that excercise, I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Riddick: The use of video-recorded evidence is, of course, very helpful, but would it not also be beneficial to abolish the right to silence in child abuse cases? That would also be useful in terrorism cases. Is it not time that juries were allowed to draw an inference from a suspect's

    923
    refusal to say where he was or what he was doing at a certain time? The innocent will have nothing to hide. Is not the right to silence the criminal's best friend?
    Mr. Jack: I know from earlier exchanges how many right hon. and hon. Members are troubled about that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has received a copy of the report by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which deals with some of the issues. Although the report reached no firm conclusions, we have read it carefully and will consider its findings, together with the Royal Commission on criminal justice, whose report will doubtless include comment on the important point that my hon. Friend has raised.

    Women-only Bus Services
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the provision of women-only bus services operated in the evening.
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend is always anxious to encourage initiatives such as this which seek to address the problems of crime and the fear of crime.
    Mr. Cryer: If the Home Secretary is so anxious about providing evening-only services for women such as the Homerunner bus service in Bradford, which has had to be withdrawn, why does he not provide a grant, which has been provided for about three years? The sum of £18,000 will get that bus back on the road and provide 300 or so women each week who use the bus service with a safe service once again. That would be about the cost of the Home Secretary's chauffeur-driven car—looking at the right hon. and learned Gentleman's figure, I think that he could do with the exercise. He should cancel the car and donate the money to keep the women of Bradford safe.
    Mr. Jack: As I am sure we shall see later, my right hon. and learned Friend is a man who is light on his feet. In fairness, the safer cities project in Bradford has been generous with its support. We originally gave a grant of £24,500 to the project in January 1990, on the proviso that funding would be raised locally. As it was not, a second grant was given in 1991 to do the same thing. To help still further, a third grant of £18,000 was given in 1992. We have bent over backwards to sustain the service, which is caught up in the general debate in Bradford about safer cities. On 12 March 1993 the Telegraph and Argus stated that we should not allow the momentum generated by the Bradford safer cities projects to be lost. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that view.

    Police Duties
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to monitor the amount of policemen's time spent on beat duty, administrative and other matters.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Government have encouraged and assisted police forces to introduce standard activity sampling as a way of monitoring the time that police officers spend on beat duty, administrative and other
    924
    matters. In addition, as I announced last week, we are launching an urgent study into ways of reducing the paperwork burden on the police.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply, and I recognise that the Government are trying to make strides in that area. My constituents in Dover and Deal, and the many country villages, want see policemen on the streets—they want them to be a visible presence. They want to see the bobby back on the beat. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make every effort possible to ensure that bobbies are not tied down by administrative work in the police station?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in his analysis of what his constituents would like to see. I am pleased to be able to remind him that Kent police have the highest proportion of their policemen on beat and patrol duty of any provincial force bar Surrey—they already have a good record.
    The reason that I decided to institute a study of the paperwork burden on the police service was to ensure that we could reduce to the necessary minimum the amount of time spent behind desks carrying out paper-related duties when arrests and prosecutions take place. We want to ensure that the biggest proportion of police time is spent on beat and patrol duty, with the police visible to the public of Kent and elsewhere.
    Mr. Miller: I am sure that the Home Secretary will share the concerns expressed on both sides of the House about the increasing levels of serious crime, especially in areas such as my own in Cheshire. Against that background, will the Home Secretary state why the head of the regional crime squad in Cheshire, Detective Superintendent Holt, together with Detective Sergeant Goulding and Detective Constable Lamble are currently confined to desk duties? Will the Home Secretary ensure that every effort is made to bring the matter to a speedy conclusion as it not only affects public confidence in the force, but relates to matters that appear to imply a serious miscarriage of justice?
    Mr. Clarke: Obviously, the individual disposition of officers is a matter for the chief constable, not me, but I shall make inquiries into the present status of the case in Cheshire referred to by the hon. Gentleman and write to him if I can give him any up-to-date information. It is sometimes necessary to suspend officers or confine them to desk duties when allegations are made against them. I am extremely concerned that, when they occur, investigations should be carried out as rapidly as possible and fairly. I am always anxious to ensure that such complaints and disciplinary measures are brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
    I have already put out a consultative document about disciplinary procedures in the police force. Although parts of it are controversial, most people agree that it is wrong from the point of view both of the public and of the police officers concerned that the process should become too protracted and legalistic and come to no conclusion for too long.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the difficulties that the Derbyshire police force has to bear as a consequence of adverse decisions taken by the county council. Does he agree that his proposals to allow greater freedom for both police

    925
    authorities and chief constables will result in more bobbies on the beat, which is what my constituents in Erewash want?
    Mr. Clarke: We have proposed stronger police authorities than there have been hitherto. I think that Derbyshire shows the need for a stronger police authority than its county council has been able to provide. We have also proposed that those stronger police authorities and chief constables should have far more discretion in how they deploy their resources. I am sure that, when these and the other reforms come into effect, the chief constable of Derbyshire, his force and the police authority will respond to the wish of the people of Derbyshire for a visible police presence on patrol, providing a sense of security and effective protection against crime for the people of Erewash and elsewhere.
    Mr. Blair: Is not one part of ensuring that there are more police men and women on the beat, which is what everyone wants, the need to build in proper incentives and esteem for the police constables who will be carrying out this duty? Will the Home Secretary therefore undertake, as part of the inquiry being conducted by Sir Patrick Sheehy, to ensure that such incentives are built into the terms and conditions of employment of police, so that more of them are encouraged to go on the beat?
    Mr. Clarke: I have had only informal contacts with Sir Patrick and his colleagues throughout the inquiry, because it is an independent inquiry, but I have given him my views on a number of subjects—views identical to those just expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that Sir Patrick and his team will bear them in mind when coming to their conclusions. It is important that rewards be distributed fairly to reflect the responsibilities borne by officers, and that the responsibilities of beat and patrol officers, whom the public rate most highly of all, be properly taken into account in the rewards system.

    Parental Responsibility
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department has taken to make parents more accountable for the behaviour of their children.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: From 1 October last year, courts have new powers to bind over the parents of offenders under the age of 16, order parents to attend court with their children and to pay their children's fines.
    Mr. Arnold: Is it not wrong that a tiny minority of parents allow their children to run riot, to the detriment of their neighbours and of other victims? Is not punishing the parents for the crimes of their children a deterrent and a way of making them face up to their responsibilities? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that describing these measures as "punishing the innocent" as the Opposition did when voting against them, is wholly wrong?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, many parents are decent people who do their best with their children but, for one reason or another, they cannot retain control of a child that becomes delinquent. The courts will not impose penalties on such parents. There are also parents, however, who neglect the behaviour of their
    926
    children and just assume that it is up to the police and the courts to protect the public from them. I therefore think that one of the best features of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, about which I shall be making a statement in a few moments, was the fact that it gave these powers to the courts. It is indeed ridiculous that this was about the only part of the Act that the Opposition chose to oppose.
    Mr. Maclennan: Would the Home Secretary take time to familiarise himself with the Scottish system for dealing with offenders which, through the children's panels, involves parents closely from the beginning of a case and appears to have rather greater success than the English juvenile courts system in preventing recidivism?
    Mr. Clarke: I was in Scotland yesterday afternoon and evening, and overnight until this morning. I took the opportunity of doing a little public sounding of my own among the Scotsmen and women whom I met. I apologise for the fact that my sample was not fully politically representative; but the Scottish children's panels have met a rather more mixed reaction than I would have expected. Not everyone agreed that the situation in Scotland is nearer perfection than it is here.

    Obscene Publications Act 1959
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his current review of the operation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to be in a position to announce the conclusions of that exercise shortly. It will lay particular emphasis on ways in which the enforcement of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 can be made more effective.
    Dr. Spink: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and I am pleased that he is considering ways to prevent that degrading material from escaping the law. How will his review impact on "Juliet", a book which our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described recently as "truly horrifying" and which the Attorney-General refused to prosecute because of the deficiencies in the 1959 Act?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has taken a leading part in drawing the attention of the House to such matters and will know that they are for the Crown Prosecution Service. I remind him that, in 1991, there were 218 successful prosecutions under section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act. As far as the weight of our review is concerned, we want to hit the pockets of pornographers hard, and to make the operation of the Act more effective. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, however, a full-scale review of all the problems of the 1959 Act, which my hon. Friend knows well, is not necessarily the best way to achieve what he wants.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Minister accept that obscenity, in its widest sense, also includes violence? As he knows, the dissemination of violence is widespread, especially through television programmes—many of which are broadcast before the watershed—and soaps, which broadcast incest, murder and all sorts of violence as though they were part of everyday living. That sort of obscenity also needs to be examined in the context of his review. Now that more than 100 Members from many parts of the House have signed

    927
    an early-day motion calling for an inquiry into the link between television violence and violence in society, does he not think that that sort of review is urgently needed?
    Mr. Jack: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noted from public statements made by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that we take what he said very seriously, and I associate myself with those comments. Yesterday, I was in discussion with the Video Standards Council, which said much the same as the hon. Member. One of the little known facts about the 1959 Act is that the term "corrupt and deprave" can apply equally to violence and to pornographic material.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: While I note that my hon. Friend and his Department have resisted calls for a fundamental review of the 1959 Act and are merely considering its enforcement, will he take it from me that that will not bring about the success—a change in the law—that he has said he wants? Does he accept that he will have to review the test of obscenity in the 1959 Act, that unless he does so no other legislation will be as strong as he would wish, and that it is about time that the Government undertook a fundamental review and brought before the House changes to improve and strengthen the outdated and flawed Obscene Publications Act?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right to use the word "outdated" in her question. Because of the exhibition that she helped to stage in the House, she knows that pornography is being disseminated by new high-tech means and by information technology, and those are the areas that we must hit hard; improving the effectiveness of the operation of the 1959 Act is one of the best ways to deal with that. She will also know that the Government have a long-standing commitment that, if someone introduced workable alternative through private Members' legislation—the 1959 Act was such a piece of private Members' legislation—we would consider it very carefully.

    Police Reorganisation
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had in relation to the reorganisation of police forces in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): None, because my right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to reorganise police forces in Wales.
    Mr. Morgan: Following last week's election results, which removed from Tory control all but one of the shire counties in England—almost as good as Wales, where we have been a Tory-shire-county-free zone since 1981—can the Home Secretary assure the House that he will not seek to take petty revenge on the electorate by removing all forms of democratic accountability from police forces when the boundaries are reorganised? How does he propose to align the boundaries of police authorities with the new boundaries of the unitary authorities as and when we get them in Wales—or is he going to tell the House that the only form of democratic accountability that he sees in the future for police forces in Wales and in England is his own, larger-than-life personality?
    Mr. Wardle: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary set out his proposals for the membership of police authorities in the statement that he made to the House on 23 March. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has proposed a single tier of unitary authorities, which fall within the existing police areas, except in one instance where it crosses the boundaries of Gwent and South Wales. We shall have to consider in due course whether to adjust police areas to match new local government boundaries.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the greater flexibility and freedom proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been warmly welcomed by the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys? In considering what the force areas should be, will he give attention to the importance of smaller forces, particularly the Dyfed-Powys force which, according to figures recently published by the Home Office, has the best clear-up rate in the country?
    Mr. Wardle: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The Dyfed-Powys force stands at the top of the league of clear-up rates for the whole of England and Wales. He may have seen—as I have been made aware of it—the chief constable's paper on the size of police forces. In his statement on 23 March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary proposed to simplify the statutory procedures by which forces can be amalgamated. He made it clear that he has no fixed, preconceived ideas about either the right number or the right size of police forces.
    Mr. Michael: Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Home Secretary wants an accelerated process to deal with police mergers. We do not believe that his intentions are so innocent. Will the Minister accept that, after a 121 per cent. increase in crime under the Conservatives in Wales and in England, the last thing that the police or the public want is the diversion of a major reorganisation? They certainly do not want police authorities chaired by right-wing commissars parachuted in by ministerial decree. Will the Minister give priority to supporting the police, local authorities and communities in their efforts to reduce crime and to fight crime, and note that the smallest forces—not just Dyfed-Powys but Gwent—have the best clear-up rates?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the increase in crime in 1992 in Wales was marginally less than the average for England and Wales as a whole. He spoke about the procedures that alllow amalgamations. I hope that he has done his homework and looked at the legislation introduced in the 1960s, which makes the approach to any such amalgamation proposals very complex. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend proposes to simplify those procedures, and he will deal with possible amalgamations as and when they should arise. The hon. Gentleman forgets that the proposals for the reform of the police service are aimed at strengthening the ability of police forces to protect the public, to prevent crime where they can do so and to tackle crime when it occurs.

    New Age Travellers
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department have taken to tackle the problem of new age travellers.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: We propose to strengthen section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 to give the police stronger powers to prevent invasions by travellers and new powers to enable them to prevent illegal rave parties.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents in Gloucestershire will be glad to hear that news. I informed him as long ago as the last May bank holiday weekend that we had a rave party in Lechlade, which cost the taxpayer well over £100,000; we had another invasion by travellers last weekend, which cost taxpayers over £200,000. My constituents in Gloucestershire barricade their homes and their land to prevent such huge invasions. Is he aware that they are now looking to the Government to take action to amend section 39 of the Public Order Act?
    Mr. Wardle: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the distress caused by large rowdy gatherings of travellers and ravers whose selfish behaviour intrudes on other people's private lives, but I hope that he acknowledges that there have been two key developments since last summer. First, as my right hon. and learned Friend has announced, we intend to strengthen the Public Order Act and apply it to a wider range of circumstances. We also propose to give the police new powers to protect local communities from illegal gatherings. Secondly, the Association of Chief Police Officers has established two co-ordination centres for intelligence gathering on travellers, and has made arrangements for much closer liaison and mutual aid to tackle just such problems. Those centres were put to good effect in the Cotswolds during the bank holiday weekend at the beginning of May.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the Minister appreciate that problems with raves are not confined to those that take place in the open air, but also affect those that take place on certain premises? The existing licensing legislation and the penalties connected therewith are wholly inadequate and need to be greatly strengthened.
    Mr. Wardle: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He will be aware that another piece of legislation is involved there, but if he cares to make representations they will be listened to carefully in the Home Department.

    Car Crime
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what innovation his Department is considering to tackle car crime.
    Mr. Jack: My advisory committee on car crime is looking at devising new ways to encourage a greater take-up of car security systems. Those efforts will be supported by the continuation of our successful car crime prevention campaign.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that immobiliser devices such as those produced by the Immobiliser group in Chelmsford are proving extremely effective in preventing car crime and are also now
    930
    affordable? Does he agree that if more motorists spent a few extra pounds installing such devices that would have a major impact in reducing car crime?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend succinctly underlines one of the key messages that helped to make car crime prevention year a success. At the start of the year, car crime was rising at a rate of 18 per cent. but by the end of the year the rate of increase had dropped to 3 per cent. and the increase in thefts of cars—immobilisers are relevant to that statistic was only 1 per cent. We are now renewing our campaign and I am sure that that message will form a key part of it.
    Mr. Faulds: Why can the car industry itself not make a greater contribution to the prevention of car crime?
    Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman had been with me at the fleet motor show recently he would have seen that most of the models now available in the United Kingdom come fitted with alarms, immobilisers and other security devices. Those are extremely effective and major buyers such as fleet users are seeing great success when they purchase cars with such equipment.
    Mr. Sykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently on television a member of the North Yorkshire probation service referred to the prisoners in her charge as "clients"? Should we not stop listening to the so-called experts and start doling out punishments that fit the crime rather than the criminal?
    Mr. Jack: I assume that behind my hon. Friend's question is the idea of the persistent young car thief. The Home Secretary's announcement that he will introduce a secure training order to deal with persistent young criminals, many of whom are car thieves, goes to the heart of my hon. Friend's question.

    Crime and Unemployment
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate new studies into the causes of crime and its relationship to unemployment.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Work on that subject was covered in the Home Office research study, "Trends in crime and their interpretation", published in 1990 and I have no current plans for fresh research in that area.
    Mr. Skinner: I regard that as shocking complacency on the part of the Government. Everyone knows that young men and women are without jobs; there are 500,000 of them on schemes and a further 500,000 waiting to leave school who cannot be motivated by their teachers because they know that their brothers and sisters have not had a job for four or five years. Is it any wonder that in our area people still repeat the old adage that the devil makes work for idle hands? It is time that the Government got back to full employment or made way for a party that will create employment.
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) gets carried away as he expresses his own prejudices rather than the truth. The study made it perfectly clear—I quote from the introduction by Dr. Simon Field—that the fluctuations in the total numbers of unemployed persons appear to be independent of the fluctuation in the number of offences. I will give the hon.

    931
    Gentleman an example that will appeal to his hon. Friends. When unemployment fell by 6 per cent. under the Conservatives in 1970–74, reported crime rose by 6 per cent. per year. When the Labour Government that followed the Conservative Government in 1974–79 saw unemployment rise by 17 per cent., reported crime increased by only 4 per cent. I expect the hon. Gentleman to tell me next that Labour unemployment is not merely better than Conservative unemployment, but is better than Conservative recovery as well.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will my hon. Friend reject once and for all the absurd myth that there is a direct link between unemployment and the rise in crime? Bearing in mind that before the war there was far greater poverty and unemployment, and far less crime, will he apply his mind much more to the real reasons, which are the breakdown in family life and, not least, the continual flouting of authority which is so much encouraged by Opposition Members?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right, although I am sure that individual unemployment can be a precipitating factor in individual cases, and that areas of multiple deprivation are huge impediments to normal law-abiding life. These are complicated problems, which we are seeking to tackle with inner city programmes, most particularly city challenge. When one considers the people who have been convicted and are in prison, what strikes one particularly is the large proportion who have been in care. Up to 40 per cent. of young offenders in prison have been in care, compared with 2 per cent. of the population as a whole, and 30 per cent. of them were consistently truanting in their last years at school. Most of them, however, have had a job, although I have no doubt at all that for the large minority who have not a large part of the reason is that they think that honest work is a mug's game.
    Ms Ruddock: No one on this side of the House deems that unemployment is any excuse for crime, but the Minister's last reply gave more considered attention to this issue. Is he aware that in London, in the poorest areas and those with highest unemployment, such as Southwark, Lambeth and Hackney, there are indeed the highest crime rates, particularly for robberies and burglaries? How does he respond to deputy assistant commissioner Roach of the Metropolitan police, who said:
    "Crime trends are largely determined by social factors…over which the police have very little influence"?
    I suggest that the Government have much control over many of those social factors and that it is time that they attended to them and really exerted some influence towards reducing the crime rate, particularly in the capital.
    Mr. Lloyd: What is perfectly clear—I will send the hon. Lady the research if she has not seen it—is that, despite all our efforts over the years to find a connection between unemployment and crime, we have not done so. Nevertheless, as I have said, I have no doubt that unemployment and many other factors play a part in individual tendencies to crime. It is too easy for Opposition Members to blame unemployment. It is a complex vicious circle and, as I said in reply to my hon. Friends, the whole range of factors, particularly in the deprived areas of inner cities, needs to be tackled as a whole. That is exactly what the Government's inner city programmes seek to do. There is no single answer. Unemployment is certainly not a prime cause or a direct
    932
    cause of crime. To say that it is such a cause is an insult to those who are unemployed and who would never indulge in crime.

    Sentencing
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the right to appeal against lenient sentences.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Most of the representations I receive on the right of appeal against lenient sentences, which was introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, are to indicate views on the outcome of particular cases.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that although the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) ludicrously tries to talk up his party as the party of law and order, the hon. Gentleman and his party voted against the measure? How can the British people take seriously Labour's pretension to support law and order when—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is calling into question the Opposition's policies. He must ask the Government about their policies, especially in relation to his substantive question.
    Mr. Spring: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the importance of ensuring that lenient sentences are referred and that we get the proper passing of sentences appropriate to the crime?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments. He is right to recall that it was this Government who introduced the new power and enabled an appeal to be made against unnecessarily lenient sentences. It was used recently most notably when there was widespread public feeling about the sentence first imposed on a 15-year-old for an offence of rape in south Wales. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General used his powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to go to the court and to get a proper sentence imposed. That power was introduced by this Government only a few years ago. My hon. Friend is right to recall that it was opposed by Opposition Members, including Opposition Front-Bench Members.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Is the Home Secretary aware that one of the main reasons why the courts have been concerned about lenient sentences is section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which the Government brought into force last October? When the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, he said that he did not intend to review the provision until a year had passed. Is not it the case that if he now intends to review section 29 and if he now accepts that there is inadequacy in the legislation that his Government passed to deal with crime, it is only because strong pressure to be tough on crime has come from the Opposition? Again, he has shown complacency.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) has just pointed out that the Labour party ferociously opposed the prosecution's right to appeal against sentences. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) pointed out that Labour opposed the power of the court in the 1991 Act to take parents before the courts and to make them liable for the

    933
    fines of their children. Section 29 of the 1991 Act was one of the measures to which the Opposition raised no opposition and which they supported. It is not working as Parliament intended. I have been saying for months that I intend to put the matter right as soon as I can. If the hon. Gentleman stays in the Chamber for about 20 minutes, he may get news which puts his mind at rest on the question.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is Labour which has opposed every major piece of criminal justice legislation in the past 14 years?
    Madam Speaker: Order. Some hon. Members will never learn. If the hon. Gentleman can ask a supplementary question that is in order, I shall of course want to hear him. I have selected him to speak.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a bit rich for Labour—
    Madam Speaker: Order, I shall pass on. I selected the hon. Gentleman because he has a substantive question on the Order Paper and I thought that he might like to follow it up. I hope that he will understand if I now call Mr. Spellar.

    Prisons (Private Security Firms)
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operation of prisons and the transport of prisoners by private security firms.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Private sector involvement in the Prison Service is designed to improve standards across the whole prison system.
    Mr. Spellar: Has the Minister any comment on the death of Mr. Hogg in custody? Has he any comments on the use of untrained drivers by Group 4? What qualifications has Group 4 for the job, apart from its association with the chairman of the Conservative party? Can the Minister further confirm whether the Metropolitan police have been instructed not to tender for certain categories of jobs such as the transfer of prisoners in London? When will he drop the prejudice, sack Group 4 and let the job be undertaken by the professionals?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will not say anything about Mr. Hogg other than that I regret very much—as does Group 4—his death, which is being investigated by the police and by the Prison Service. The hon. Gentleman has referred to Group 4. Its escorts have been conveying a thousand prisoners a week for the past six weeks, after a very unfortunate start —I accept that—for everyone but the cartoonists and the knee-jerk reactionaries on the Opposition Benches, when Group 4 lost eight prisoners in the first three weeks, of whom three at least did not escape due to its error. Group 4 has been doing its difficult and demanding job with increasing efficiency. Last year in that area the police and the Prison Service lost at least 30 prisoners, so Group 4 has a long way to go in losing prisoners before it catches up with the public sector. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Lloyd: Opposition Members should restrain their laughter and note that Group 4 is releasing up to 150 highly trained police officers for operational duties in the public interest. Group 4 ought to continue and make a
    934
    success of its work; only the anti-private sector vendetta of Opposition Members would be served by the cancellation of its contract.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the levels of compensation paid out under the citizens charter demonstrate its effectiveness? Does he further agree that the moves to agency status and contracting out are the best way of achieving value for money? Does he also agree that it is not surprising that all those measures have been resisted by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: As to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I am unsurprised.
    Paying compensation is popular with those who use public services. I also believe that it is right that compensation should be paid when service is bad. It provides a satisfactory discipline on the public services. As regards contracting out, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It has brought great benefits both to those who use public services and, critically, to those who pay for public services.
    Mr. John Smith: Since the opposition of the whole teaching profession to the imposition of tests this year has been reinforced by the overwhelming vote by members of the National Union of Teachers in favour of a boycott, will the Prime Minister now do the sensible thing and suspend compulsory tests this year?
    The Prime Minister: I was very sad this morning to see the result of the vote by the National Union of Teachers, which was the only teacher association not to welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on Tuesday. A lot of people will be asking whether that union, really supports the principle of regular testing in our schools or whether another agenda concerns it. I very much trust that the NUT will reflect on what my right hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Smith: As the Secretary of State for Education was forced to concede that there were flaws in the tests, which is why he climbed down about next year, why on earth is the Prime Minister forcing children to take the tests this year?
    The Prime Minister: What should be called off are the unprofessional and utterly futile boycott threats. Teachers should do what the majority of parents want—co-operate in helping to make the tests work this year and in future years.
    On the second point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, he will recall that he has asked me that before. Ron Dearing has made it absolutely clear that he needs the experience of this year's tests to redesign them satisfactorily for the future.
    Mr. Smith: As there is overwhelming opposition to compulsory tests this year, from parents as well as teachers and governors, why does the Prime Minister not show a glimmer of common sense and end the farce now? If he is not listening to parents and teachers, whom is he listening to? Does he not understand that to be so foolishly stubborn is a sign of weakness and not of strength?
    The Prime Minister: It is common sense to proceed with tests so that we can correct them and get them right in the future. Testing in schools is vital to measure the progress of the pupils concerned. The Opposition may wriggle, but that happens to be the reality. I hope that even, at this late stage, teachers will realise the importance to pupils of having these tests, the importance to the reform of testing of having those tests and the importance to the dignity of the profession of teaching in not proceeding with industrial action at the expense of schools.
    Mr. Gorst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Conservative Government came to office in 1979 membership of trade unions has fallen by 28 per cent? Will my right hon. Friend say whether he believes this is due to their being a growing anachronism, badly led, or merely because of their limpet-like, hand-in-glove connection with the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly not inclined to disagree with any of my hon. Friend's points. Trade union membership does continue to decline and is substantially lower than it was a decade or so ago. I notice that many of the unions still sponsor right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench and resist suggestions that they should abandon the out-dated block vote in favour of one member, one vote. It is a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune, and on this, too, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is wriggling.
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Burden: The Prime Minister will probably have heard that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that he regrets
    "that inflation got out of control at the end of the 1980s."
    Would the Prime Minister care to enlighten the House as to what jobs he was doing at the end of the 1980s?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had cared to research very carefully, he would have known that we have made it clear on a number of occasions that after the 1987 stock exchange crash we reduced interest rates faster than, with hindsight, we thought was correct, and that contributed to inflation. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, at that time, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) both invited us to cut interest rates further and faster and that that would have put inflation up even more. The hon. Gentleman should do his research more accurately.
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jessel: As the economy and business confidence have, under the Conservative Government, begun to improve—especially since Britain left the exchange rate mechanism—will my right hon. Friend give further support to business confidence by making it clear that the United Kingdom will not return to fixed exchange rates?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, and as I made clear earlier this year, we will not consider rejoining the ERM before important conditions have been met, in particular the requirement that German and United Kingdom monetary policies must be much more closely aligned before we can begin to consider whether it would be appropriate for Britain to rejoin. Clearly those conditions are unlikely to be satisfied soon.
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barnes: Some people still believe in the ultimate objective of a multi-ethnic democratic society, with full minority rights, for the former Yugoslavia. Included among them are many of the people of Yugoslavia who bravely stand out against violence and intimidation. Why do we not listen to some of their ideas for the extension of safe havens and United Nations border controls? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not everyone in Yugoslavia is a supporter of paramilitarism and war lords?
    The Prime Minister: We have indicated on a number of occasions in the House the way in which we think it is right for us to proceed at the moment. We have made that clear and we have said that we believe that it is right to continue to pursue a political settlement, without which no settlement can stick in the long term even though perhaps for a short while it might be held. We have made it clear that we believe that it is right to proceed with sanctions, and we have not ruled out the use of force, should that prove necessary, in selected circumstances.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as economic growth strengthens and as our improved competitiveness, particularly in manufacturing, makes its impact, that will increasingly be appreciated by the voters, who will also note the nature of the Opposition parties —one inextricably tied to the big unions and big bureaucracy and the other without roots and no more than the scavengers of British politics?
    The Prime Minister: Things have certainly been difficult for many companies and people throughout the recession. I understand that and have acknowledged it on a number of occasions. I believe that as recovery comes through, many of those people will see that it would not have come through unless we had taken the right decisions to get inflation down and keep it down for the future.
    We can now see that manufacturing output is turning up, that manufacturing productivity is at record levels, that exports of manufactures are at record levels and that, according to the Confederation of British Industry,

    937
    optimism in manufacturing industry has reached a 10-year high. They are very welcome signs. We are clearly coming out of recession in the right circumstances for sustained growth over a long period.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: When the right hon. Gentleman took the decision to withhold the helicopter carrier order from Swan Hunter Shipbuilders, he will have known that he was bringing shipbuilding on Tyneside to an end, so he will not be surprised to learn that at 1 o'clock today Swan Hunter called in the receivers and 6,000 people are now to lose their jobs on Tyneside. Will the Prime Minister help my constituents by telling them where they will find alternative work?
    The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that, of the two tenders submitted, that submitted by VSEL at Barrow was many tens of millions of pounds below the tender submitted by Swan Hunter. I understand the difficulties faced by Swan Hunter and, because I know of those difficulties, I agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to bring forward that tender earlier than we would otherwise have done to see whether Swan Hunter could satisfactorily win the tender in open competition. I regret that it did not, but I am not in a position to reject a tender many tens of millions of pounds below that of the alternative tender.
    The answer to the substantive second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that it is precisely because we are concerned about the employment prospects on Tyneside that we yesterday announced a range of measures to help, including a new enterprise zone, a new English Estates development in conjunction with the city council and the development corporation, more services from the Tyneside training and enterprise council and employment services, confirmation that Newcastle and South Tyneside will remain a development area, and extra resources for the Tyne and Wear development corporation for industrial sites.
    I invite Opposition Members who scoffed when I mentioned the enterprise zone to look at other parts of the country that have faced similar difficulties in the past to see how effective that has been. They might, for example, recall the great difficulties at Shotton 10 years ago. If they go back to Shotton today, they will find a modern estate with high-paid, permanent, high-tech, secure jobs for just as many people as once worked in the steel industry there.
    Mr. Ancram: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as the optimism to which he referred in yesterday's CBI survey, there are also real indications of growth and increased investment in most of the regions of the United Kingdom, including the south-west? Given that after three hard years of recession most people in my constituency, and elsewhere, want to see real, tangible proof of recovery, as well as promises of recovery, does my right hon. Friend welcome the report as a true indication of recovery which even Opposition Members cannot deny?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do welcome the report and I hope that that encouraging trend will continue in the months ahead. It is encouraging that businesses right across the country themselves expect to grow strongly in the months immediately ahead of us—in the south-west, certainly, but also in the south-east, the midlands and right across the land. What we in the House all want, I think, without exception, is to see that growth translated into jobs and into money in the family pay packet.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Prime Minister accept that the campaign by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to transfer payments from post offices to banks is totally inimical to the interests of those who live in rural communities? Will he ask the Secretary of State to call off that campaign? Does he further recognise that the privatisation of the Post Office will damage rural post offices and delivery services? Rather than postpone privatisation, will he now abandon it?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) last week, I believe, we have made no such proposals. Our policy is to encourage people to receive benefits via their accounts while maintaining a viable network of post office outlets.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Time is up. Statement, Mr. Secretary Clarke.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order come after statements.

Criminal Justice
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the criminal justice system.
The House will recall that on 14 April it gave an unopposed Second Reading to the Criminal Justice Bill dealing with money laundering and other financial crimes. That Bill had already been considered in another place.
The House of Lords authorities had taken a narrow view on what was within the scope of the Bill. At the time of Second Reading in this House, I explained that I had been advised that we would therefore be unable to use the Bill to improve the working of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
However, two days ago I was told that the authorities of the House of Commons might take a different view. I therefore might now have an unexpected and welcome opportunity to bring before the House in this Session of Parliament amendments to give effect to commitments that I have already made to amend the 1991 Act. That Act is plainly not working as Parliament would have liked, and it is clearly in the interests of justice that I should move to put matters right quickly, now that I do have this welcome opportunity.
Subject to the approval of the appropriate authorities in the House, therefore, I intend to table amendments to the present Criminal Justice Bill which will deal with the problems of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and also strengthen the powers of the courts in other important respects.
First, we will seek to amend section 1 of the 1991 Act so as to allow the courts to take into account all the offences for which the offender is being dealt with, instead of only one offence, or that offence and one other offence, which is the case now.
Secondly, we propose to restore to the courts their power to have full regard to the criminal record of an offender and his response to previous sentences when deciding on the sentence for his current offences. We will do this by repealing section 29 of the 1991 Act, which prevents a court from regarding an offence as more serious by reason of any previous convictions of the offender, or his failure to respond to previous sentences.
These changes, which I wish to see made to the 1991 Act, will make it clear that sentencers have all reasonable discretion to decide upon the right sentence in a particular case, bearing in mind the seriousness of the offences being dealt with, all the circumstances of the offender and his offending behaviour.
We will ensure that the law allows the courts to exercise judgment and common sense within a sensible legal framework that allows justice to be done in the interest of the public, the victim and the offender.
So far as fines are concerned. I am quite satisfied that courts should continue to have regard to the particular circumstances of individual offenders—in particular, to their means to pay—when fixing the level of a fine. I have been equally clear for some time, and I have frequently said, that we should not require magistrates' courts to go through the mechanistic provision currently required under the unit fine arrangements. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), Minister of State in my Department, and I have been seeking for some time
940
modifications that we might make to the rules of the unit fines scheme to produce better results. We have now concluded that it is not possible to do so.
Accordingly, I now propose to abolish the unit fines system and replace it with provisions which will require magistrates fully to consider an offender's means when imposing a fine but which will not require them to fine by application of any mathematical formula. [Interruption.] I get the sense that this change will be widely welcomed, not least by magistrates outside the House.

I will also—again, subject to the judgment of the House authorities—seek to table further amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill currently before the House which will give to the courts the statutory power to increase sentence for those who offend on bail. We will also be seeking to fulfil our undertaking to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous or drunken driving from its present five years to a new maximum of 10 years' imprisonment.
There are many other improvements to the criminal justice system and the powers of the courts which I intend in due course to bring before the House. We are also awaiting the report of the Royal Commission on the criminal justice system. At this stage of this Session of Parliament, it would not be prudent to introduce more complex amendments to the law and new criminal offences which might require extended parliamentary debate. I hope to have an opportunity to introduce further criminal justice measures in fresh legislation in the reasonably near future.
Mr. Tony Blair: First, I welcome the Home Secretary's statement on the shambles of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. We are surprised, however, that he has not seen fit to make a statement specifically on the allegations that there has been illegal bugging of the conversations of the royal family—allegations that are directly relevant to criminal justice. I should like to put to the Home Secretary one question about this matter. Either the transcripts that are circulating are forgeries, in which case a serious offence of criminal fraud has almost certainly been committed, or they are genuine, in which case a gross intrusion of privacy by illegal—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. If hon. Members were listening to the statement of the Secretary of State, they will remember the final paragraphs. Will the hon. Gentleman keep that in mind?
Mr. Blair: Either these transcripts are forgeries, in which case a serious offence of criminal fraud has almost certainly been committed, or they are genuine, in which case a gross intrusion of privacy by illegal means has taken place. In either event, given that the Home Secretary is responsible for both criminal justice and issues concerning the royal family, are not these matters ripe for serious and urgent investigation, irrespective of the position of the security services?
I should like now to deal with the Criminal Justice Act. Never have we seen so quick a collapse of Government policy, even for the present Government. In dealing with the worst abuses of the Act, the Home Secretary will have much support. I am surprised that he did not pay tribute to the private Members' Bills of my hon. Friends the Members for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).

941
I should like to press him on one central matter. Having spent weeks, if not months, robustly telling us that the Criminal Justice Act had a lot to commend it, he now equally robustly tells us that he must scrap its central provisions. Does he not understand that the problem with which the Criminal Justice Act sought to deal is arbitrary and inconsistent sentencing, and that it is therefore important that he should not scrap the Act and leave a dreadful hole?
Is there not therefore now a clear and urgent need for proper sentencing guidelines? Otherwise, the very difficulties that gave rise to his predecessor's legislation and the reasons for his support will recur, and one ill thought out proposal will simply be replaced by another.
May I also ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why he is not trying to deal with other abuses of the criminal justice system? First, does he know that, because of the rising scandal of delays and adjournments in the criminal courts, it takes six months or more for many cases to reach a hearing? Is it not high time that the operation of the courts was overhauled thoroughly and they were run not for the convenience of those who administer the system but in the interests of justice for those who use it?
Secondly, does he know that, according to his own figures, the number of cases discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service has risen by over 20 per cent. in a year? Is he aware of, and will he comment on, the concerns of the police and prosecution services that many cases are discontinued, not on public interest grounds or for lack of evidence but because of pressure on resources? Is that right?
Thirdly, is not one abuse of the system the treatment of victims? Why will the Home Secretary not support us in saying that the Crown Prosecution Service should be legally obliged, before dropping or amending charges, especially in cases of rape or assault, fully to consult the victim? Above all, will he confirm that the level of crime is such that only one in 23 cases ever results in a conviction or caution? Therefore, may I urge him once again to rethink his strategy on crime prevention and accept the advisory report that was published in his office two years ago?
There is little point in drawing attention, as the Home Secretary does, to the link between crime and drugs, and then cutting drug advisory posts. There is little use in worrying about the appalling rise in truancy, with tens of thousands playing truant every day, and cutting the funding for truancy officers in local authorities. There is little chance of young people learning self-respect when thousands of them have to leave school every year and face nothing better than a life on the dole.
May I tell the Home Secretary that there is a possibility of establishing a broad basis of action on criminal justice, but to do that the Government must learn not just to rectify sensibly the mistakes for which they were responsible in the past, but to think through a coherent policy for the future to fight both crime and its underlying causes, so that the plague that makes life hell for millions of people in local communities can be addressed with the seriousness of purpose which they desperately wish to see?
Mr. Clarke: I find the hon. Gentleman's choice of priorities in politics utterly absurd. We are considering extremely important matters about the powers of the courts to deal properly with offenders who appear before them. Yet he kicks off by making his first priority,
942
presumably placed on behalf of the Daily Mirror, to try to sell rather sleazy royal books, asking me to inquire into ridiculous allegations for which he knows well that there is no shred of support. He is a tabloid politician, unable to turn his attention to serious criminal matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is among those who have been pressing me for legislation to address the 1991 Act. I have been saying for some time that I do not like the way the Act has been working. Most hon. Members and magistrates do not like the way it has been working. We can now take action to get it into the shape that it ought to have been.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has kept his head down on the subject. A few moments ago, he gave those warnings about arbitrary sentencing, which were used in the speeches of his hon. Friends when they supported the legislation which tried to put in place mechanistic constraints on the courts, which in practice, as we all know, have not worked out properly. If he can turn away from royal scandals, buggings and matrimonial quarrels, he will have a chance to decide how he will vote on some things which matter to real men and women throughout the country.
I assume from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he will support the changes which I propose to the 1991 Act. I wish I always had that docile acquiescence from my opposite number on everything I propose. He has not yet made up his mind about bail and whether he approves of the proposal that we give the courts the statutory power to increase the sentence of those who offend on bail. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Asil Nadir?"] Perhaps the thought that, when we get Mr. Asil Nadir back, we will give the court a power that it now lacks to add to the sentence if he is convicted and if he commits further offences while on bail will prompt Labour Members to support us, but hitherto they have not supported sensible propositions in this field at all.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield has not yet made up his mind whether to support the increased penalty for causing death by dangerous or drunken driving—we shall see where we get to on that proposal. He gave us his usual litany about how important it is to go back to the Morgan report and examine whether local authorities should have a statutory duty in crime prevention. As far as I can see, that is the only original insight into crime that the Labour party has had so far in its new guise.
When the hon. Gentleman says that cases are discontinued for lack of resources, he plainly ignores the amount of resources that we are putting into the police and criminal justice system. It may be the burden of paperwork which has been imposed on those who arrest, prosecute and take people from arrest to trial by various people with well-intentioned reforms over the years that needs to be addressed. That is why I have set up an inquiry into the matter—we look forward to the report. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the other matters to which he referred are not within my area, so I should not dilate on the drive that my right hon. Friend the Minister is having on truancy and the £10 million campaign that he has already carried forward.
Today, I have announced the next stage in a package of measures to give the courts a proper range of powers so that they can exercise their discretion, judgment, and mercy on occasions, as well as their proper regard for the public interest of others, when they deal with those who are brought before them. Labour Members have not given

943
serious thought to the matter. Perhaps, when this Bill comes before the House, at least they will have the decency to allow it a reasonably quick passage in its amended form.
Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government have done much to strengthen the criminal justice system by one of the largest increases ever in appointments of Her Majesty's judges to the High Court bench? Does he further agree that his statement to the House today, arising from his listening to his colleagues on the Conservative Benches and the public more generally, will do more to engender confidence in the criminal justice system than ever before?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reminder that we have strengthened the courts to deal with the weight of work before them—I am grateful for his support. His advice has been invaluable in our consideration of the way in which the Criminal Justice Act has been working. I look forward to having similarly constructive advice during the passage of this Bill and the other criminal justice Bills which we intend to introduce in due course.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is it not utter gall on the part of the Home Secretary to attack the Opposition spokesman for seeking to catch headlines when the whole of this operation is designed to catch a headline, "Crackdown on Crime", in the face of escalating crime figures which are without parallel in our history? Is it not monstrous that he should bring forward a total reversal of policy, which was commended to the House only two years ago by another instant governing Home Secretary as the answer to the problem of inconsistency in sentencing, to further his own petty personal policies?—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. Maclennan: At a time when the royal commission is reaching its final conclusions, the Home Secretary has the effrontery and lack of sense to introduce ill thought out measures at a time when he does not even know whether Parliament is allowed to consider them. Surely it is time that he sat on the back burner and allowed sensible debate to take place in the House.
Mr. Clarke: In response to the hon. Gentleman, I ask him to go away, lie down in a dark room, keep taking the tablets and think carefully about whether the Liberal Democrats have an opinion one way or the other on the merits of any of the proposals that I have just announced.
Mr. Michael Shersby: The Home Secretary's announcement this afternoon will be warmly welcomed not only by my constituents but by the Police Federation and its members up and down the country. All hon. Members in the House, bar one or two, know that his common-sense decision to allow the courts access to previous criminal convictions must be right. I hope that it will help to put behind bars burglars who pester the private homes of all our constituents.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what proposals he has for restricting the bail granted to, in
944
particular, young people, who often go through what the police regard as the revolving door of arrest, bail, further offending, bail and so on? How will that work?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a close and continuing interest in matters connected with policing. I am happy to confirm that we will give the courts power to consider previous convictions, among other things.
The men and women we appoint to the bench, be they judges or magistrates, are expected to bring civilised common sense and judgment to their task. They must be allowed to examine all the relevant circumstances, the nature of the offence, the offender's background, whether he has committed crimes before and how he has responded to earlier sentences. They must bear those factors in mind when passing a sentence that matches the seriousness of the offences of which the offender is now guilty. I believe that that approach will be welcomed by serving police officers who take those whom they arrest to the courts, as well as by all right-thinking people who want justice to be done.
My hon. Friend also raised the extremely complex issue of the way in which out-of-control young people should be handled—for instance, how those who are currently given bail before being dealt with by the youth courts should be remanded. That question takes us into much more complicated areas. In many ways, I should like to present provisions related to the treatment of young people in the form of amendments to this year's Criminal Justice Bill. We are now in May, however; I have been given the unexpected and welcome news that the proposed amendments are acceptable, but I think that we shall have to wait for later legislation to tackle such a complex matter properly, thus satisfying the legitimate public concerns voiced by my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I welcome the abolition of the unit fines system, but will the Home Secretary now apply his mind to the victims of the massive escalation of crime by funding victim support properly and on a proper basis, funding the youth service which literally keeps young people off the streets and recognising that local authorities can play a legitimate positive role in dealing with crime? Above all, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman urge his colleagues to provide 16-year-olds with benefit, jobs or at least some stake in the future? At present, they have none.
Mr. Clarke: We have built up the concept of victim support panels; I agree with the hon. Lady about their value. We continually increase the resources that we provide for such panels, and also give financial compensation to crime victims through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Such compensation is now provided on a considerable scale. We are readdressing the quality of service and the promptness of the payments.
We have developed the idea of crime prevention panels, which is 25 years old. Youth crime prevention, however, is a particularly important issue, and we continue to support and build on the necessary measures in every possible way. I do not deny that local authorities can play a very useful role in crime prevention: indeed, such a role is played by authorities up and down the country. However, I dispute the narrow point about whether we should lay a new statutory duty on them. The hon. Member for Sedgefield

945
seems to cling obsessively to that idea. It is not a great centre of policy, as he suggests; it is a footnote to activities that are taking place throughout the country.
Of course it is important for young people to have a purposeful occupation. That is why all the relevant agencies must be involved—local authorities, the education service, the police and others—and why we take every opportunity to support any measure that provides young people who may risk becoming offenders with the chance of some purposeful activity and outlet for their energies. None of that, however, avoids the need to give the courts the power they require to protect the public against those on whom such measures have no effect—those who desire to commit crime and who need to be punished in a way that the public consider fit.
Sir Peter Emery: Many people throughout the country will praise my right hon. and learned Friend for his willingness to admit that we have made mistakes. He has listened to the comments that have been made, and come forward to correct the errors.
May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to try to find time to implement his announcement about secure training orders in the new amendments? Many people, particularly the police, are most concerned that we cannot deal with those young people aged between 12 and 15 who are consistently out of control, when the court has no power to lock them up or restrain them. If Government policy could move towards achieving that, it would be welcomed by both the police and the general public.
Mr. Clarke: I have announced my intentions, and I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support. I have considered that specific factor, but I do not think that it would be sensible for me to place before the House authorities possible amendments on that issue, which requires greater development of the proposed legislation than can properly be considered in the House and another place in the time remaining in this parliamentary Session.
I do not think that it would save a great deal of time to seek to legislate now in a hurry, because we still have to develop the concept of such institutions. We must have places to which the hard-core persistent offenders can be sent where we can be sure that the regime is suitable for delinquent school-age boys, and is likely to give them the quality of education and training they require when they are locked up to prevent them from harming themselves and the public.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In the light of the massive changes that the Home Secretary has announced today, where people have been fined £400 or £500 for traffic offences and the cases have not gone to appeal, or where fines have been paid over a period of months or weeks and have not yet been paid in full, will those large fines be reduced and will transitional payments be reduced? Thousands of people feel that they have had a raw deal. If the law is to be changed, the changes should be retrospective.
Will the Home Secretary explain how he can talk about bail in the light of what Asil Nadir did the other week when he flew the coop, some say with the help of the Government as he paid £440,000 to the Tory party—and he who pays the piper, calls the tune?
Mr. Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, large numbers of people are appealing against the fines
946
imposed on them, and quite large numbers have been successful in getting the fines reduced. The Crown court is able to correct on appeal some of the stranger fines which have been imposed—that process will continue. It is up to the House to change the law in future and give the magistrates courts the full discretion they require. Not all the reported cases of high fines are as outrageous as they are sometimes made to appear, although some are absurd, as I have said.
However, some are a slip—it is not necessary to regard the £100 unit as essential when someone has not filled in the form. For example, in the notorious case of the man who was fined £1,200 for dropping a crisp packet, the fine was reduced to £48 on appeal to the Crown court. The fine might have been lower if someone had asked the man to fill out a form at the magistrates court before the first £1,200 fine was imposed.
There is a process under which people can appeal against sentences which they feel are wrong, and have them put right. Some of those who complain to the newspapers have committed serious offences, and I have read of some cases that made me surprised that those involved were not sent to prison rather than being given a large fine. Parliament approved raising the maximum fine to £5,000—a fine is a proper penalty for people with the means who have committed serious offences.
I do not believe that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is seriously maintaining that the Government supported Asil Nadir's escape. If he is, his accusation is groundless and ridiculous, and there is no shred of evidence to support it. His claim is about as daft as his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield believing that spies are bugging royal marriages.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that my constituents will be delighted by the proposals that he has announced today, particularly as they have suffered as a result of people who have reoffended while on bail? Will it be made clear in the amendments that it is not only parents who are responsible for their children's behaviour, but county councils such as Lancashire county council, into whose care they have been committed? Does he not deplore the fact that the county council appealed against the damages levelled against it for offences committed and damage caused by the children who had been in its care?
Mr. Clarke: The Act applies to local authorities with children in their care as well as to parents, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Some local authority homes are the principal centres of car crime and burglary in their areas. I have some sympathy for those in charge of the homes, however. Following the Children Act 1989 and the guidance issued under it, a great deal of litigation has ensued in the name of children's advocacy; and it has been extremely confusing to be buffeted between the following competing demands—those living near the homes need to be protected from burglary; at the same time, there are the constant worries about the abuse of children and the use of excessive force.
I welcome the guidance recently issued by my colleague in the Department of Health which made it clear that the staff have the legal power—and, in my opinion, the duty —sometimes to impose restraint on young people in their care who are likely to do harm to themselves or others. I am sure that my hon. Friend is looking at that guidance in

947
more detail to ensure that we eventually arrive at a commonsense balance that protects children from abuse by those in charge of them and also protects neighbours and local people from crimes committed by children who are completely out of control and who cannot be restrained when the police return them to the children's home from which they have come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am always keen, as the House knows, to call as many hon. Members as possible, but the House makes that extremely difficult for me when Members ask long questions and make long comments. It is equally difficult when Ministers give very long answers. I hope that what I have said has been taken to heart by all concerned.
Mr. Greville Janner: I welcome the Minister's intention to get rid of the unifying system which, in practice, has so often worked out unfairly. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell magistrates what they are to do in the meantime? Has he not advised magistrates to use their discretion? The Justices' Clerks Society has advised magistrates that, in its view, to do so would be unlawful. So what are magistrates to do until the system is changed?
Mr. Clarke: The Magistrates Association recently put out advice to its members shortly after it had held a meeting with me. I am glad to say that it was a productive meeting. We entirely agreed on what we wanted to restore to the courts. I believe that the guidance that the association put out thereafter was helpful and accurate.
I have not heard whether the Justices' Clerks Society is maintaining its opposition, but I think that it will find when it reads the guidance carefully that it is consistent with the Act.
One trouble is that practice has varied so widely from court to court. Sometimes courts have appeared to be acting in the belief that they have scarcely any discretion in the size of the unit or how they apply the system. A proper examination of the Act, even before we change it, will show that it does give magistrates courts much wider discretion than some of them have been led to believe in the early stages.
Sir Edward Heath: As my right hon. and learned Friend has said that he will consider other improvements while he is examining these questions, may I ask him to recognise that what worries many of us more than anything is the appalling slowness of the machinery of justice? While it may be necessary to consult the Lord Chancellor, can he give us an undertaking that he will look into that speedily; and that if more resources are required, in the name of British justice they must be provided?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Incidentally, I was probably less than fair to the hon. Member for Sedgefield for not referring to what he said about how the courts are administered. I have considerable sympathy with his remarks.
The process of criminal litigation—of investigation and processing—now takes much longer than it did 10 or 20 years ago. That is partly inescapable, because of all the
948
additional safeguards introduced to protect yet further the rights of the accused and to guard against the problems of unfair convictions. I am not satisfied, however, that the process is conducted as expeditiously as it could be. I am not satisfied that it imposes the minimum office-bound duties on police officers.
There are too many court adjournments, a problem with which my right hon. and noble Friend is dealing. There are also many other aspects of the administration of criminal justice to which we should turn our minds. Some of them are far beyond my control—for instance, the average length of a criminal trial is almost invariably longer than it was 20 years ago, with no noticeably dramatic improvement in the quality of justice.
I accept that we should not look at the subject in a piecemeal fashion. The criminal justice system faces unprecedented burdens and demands today, but we must ensure that it responds expeditiously while remaining just in its conclusions.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Resulting from the Home Secretary's initial response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the comments that the Home Secretary made on television yesterday—that in all probability private conversations between the Prince and Princess of Wales had been bugged—would the Home Secretary confirm that if such bugging took place it was an illegal act, and that a proper police inquiry and investigation should take place?
Mr. Clarke: I did not say that bugging had taken place. Among the many absurdities appearing in today's press is a misuse of what I said. I was being pressed, ad nauseam, by a lot of journalists—some from newspapers trying to justify yet more pages of royal gossip—about the marvellous bugging that they were so interested in. As they went on, I am afraid that I treated with derision the suggestion that they had the slightest evidence that the bugging had anything to do with the security services. I was told that they had all the information, so I said, "Well, it appears that someone's bugging the royal family."
I have no more knowledge than the hon. Gentleman of whether the stuff is authentic. Having seen some of the people who were parading around yesterday, arguing about who would get money out of it, I am not sure that I am satisfied that any of it is authentic. It is absolutely absurd for the House to be taking up such nonsense at the behest of tabloid newspapers, when the rest of us are discussing serious matters of criminal justice and the powers of the courts.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. and learned Friend's statement will strike the people of my constituency—who have been writing to me in their hundreds—as according with the grain of common sense, which is exactly what they would expect from a Conservative Administration. They will also have noted the complete lack of support that the statement received from the Liberal Benches.
When my right hon. and learned Friend considers other measures in the same way, will he please consider the workings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? As a practising solicitor, may I inform him that any solicitor would tell him that the Act is wide open for exploitation in the interests of criminals? The problem with the operation of the Act is that the balance between

949
the rights of the criminal and those of society has swung so far that the legislation is actively exploited in the interests of the criminal fraternity.
Mr. Clarke: I agree that common sense is one of the better qualities that can be brought to politics of all kinds. I am sorry that its application has finally sent the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), rushing away to the refuge that I recommended to him. He has gone to confer with his colleagues.
On the second question, the introduction of taped interviews and so forth seems a valuable advance in criminal investigations, and I would not willingly sweep away the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. However, we are waiting for the royal commission, which must deal with the right balance between the demands of justice, the proper requirements of the public interest, and proper and sensible safeguards for the rights of the accused.
Mrs. Barbara Roche: Does the Home Secretary agree that the allegations about the security service bugging the royal family seek only to undermine confidence in the service? Does he therefore think that it would be a good idea for the Government to approve the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that there should be parliamentary scrutiny of MI5?
Mr. Clarke: The House should not dance that sort of tune to the events of the past few days. We should devote the time of the House, and the efforts of those whom the Government ask to carry out inquiries, to serious matters, where there is some sort of evidence to be investigated. No serious person has come up with any evidence from which one could begin to investigate the rather daft allegation that MI5 is bugging the royal family—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is."). A mere suggestion in a favourite newspaper —it may not be your favourite, Madam Speaker —is not grounds for political debate or public inquiry.
Mr. Tim Devlin: My right hon. and learned Friend's proposals will be widely welcomed on Teesside, which unfortunately is the second worst area for car theft. I am told by local police that about 150 young people are perpetrating about 90 per cent. of the crimes. If the courts take all their previous offences—which are legion—into account as a result of today's proposals, will that mean that we will have to put more young people in secure accommodation? If so, is he satisfied that the 17 or 18 places that he has announced for the region will be sufficient? If they are not, will he provide more?
Mr. Clarke: There are strong feelings in all parts of the north-east, and that includes my hon. Friend's constituency, about persistent car theft by a handful of young people. The changes that I am proposing will mean that, when dealing with an offender of any age, the court will be entitled to look at all the offences that he has committed and for which he is before the court, and not just at the most serious and one associated with it. The court will be empowered to have regard to what has happened previously when other types of sentence have been tried. There may well be an even bigger demand for secure accommodation than has already grown up under some of the better provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
There is nothing to stop local authorities providing secure accommodation now, so long as they comply with
950
the requirements of the Children Act 1989. The policies of both the social services and local authorities have led largely to the dramatic decline of secure accommodation across the country, and many local authorities are still unwilling to extend any secure accommodation.
The Government make money available for small numbers of additional places, as my hon. Friend said, but we need to study the proposals made earlier this year about the secure training order and also look for other providers of secure accommodation apart from the social services departments if we are to meet the level of need in the north-east of England.
Mr. David Winnick: Why does not the Home Secretary take more seriously the allegations against the security service, bearing in mind the fact that previous allegations about the security service that were denied turned out to be true? Why does he not bear in mind that the feeling of many hon. Members, which I raised at the last Home Office Question Time, is that the Security Service should be fully accountable to Parliament, as in other western democracies? What is so wrong with that, and why does he dismiss it? The Opposition require no lectures on crime from the Government, bearing in mind what has happened in the past 14 years.
Mr. Clarke: The Security Service is subject to my supervision as Home Secretary, as it has been with succeeding Home Secretaries. It is also subject to supervision of the commissioner, Lord Justice Stuart Smith. The Master of the Rolls is also empowered to supervise the security services and has reported that he is quite satisfied—I do not use his exact words—that the Security Service has not been involved in those matters. So a High Court judge, who is the commissioner of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, can find no evidence of such involvement.
Some people are obsessive about anything to do with both the security services and with the royal family. I said yesterday, and I am sorry to repeat it, that if the hon. Gentleman asserted to me that the moon was made of green cheese—which he might—I would investigate it if he could produce anyone who had even seen that the moon was made of green cheese or had a crumb of cheese from the surface. However, the mere assertion in whatever newspaper the hon. Gentleman has read that MI5 is involved is not a basis for setting aside all the statutory controls that the House has agreed or for pandering to newspapers and to people trying to make a quick buck from nasty books.
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend's statement will, I am sure, help magistrates and courts to give priority in sentencing to the victims and not to the criminals. Therefore, will he confirm that it is not his intention in any way to interfere with those parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 that are working extremely well? They include stronger parental responsibility, tougher sentences for those who commit violent and sexual crimes, reform of parole and tougher community sentences.
Mr. Clarke: Those provisions are indeed all working well. They are quite essential, and I think that we have now sorted out the way in which those provisions are working and put them in line with what I believe the House

951
intended. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 will be seen as yet another improvement to the criminal justice system, strengthening the hands of the police and the courts.

Business of the House
4.13 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 MAY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Motion relating to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 18 MAY—Motion for the spring Adjournment.
Remaining stages of the Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 19 MAY—Opposition day, 12th allotted day. Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate described as "Automated Credit Transfer and the Threat to Sub-post Offices", followed by a debate described as "The Destruction of Britain's Defence Industrial Base". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 20 MAY—European Communities (Amendment) Bill, Third Reading.
FRIDAY 21 MAY—Debate on Government support for exporters, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 24 MAY—Progress on the remaining stages of the Railways Bill.
The House will also wish to know that, on Wednesday 19 May, at 10.30 am, European Standing Committee A will meet to consider EC documents relating to the slaughter of animals, and European Standing Committee B to consider documents on the protection of young people at work.
[Wednesday 19 May:
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Documents:
9880/91 10306/92} Slaughter of animals
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:
HC 24-x (1991–92), HC 79-xxiii (1992–93), HC 79-xvi (1992–93), HC 79-xxviii (1992–93) HC 79-xix (1992–93),
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Documents:
5378/92 4690/93} Protection of young people at work
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:
HC 79-iii (1992–93), HC 79-xxvi (1992–93), HC 79-xxiv (1992–93), HC 79-xxviii (1992–93.]
Lastly, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the spring Adjournement on Thursday 27 May until Monday 7 June. In case anyone has forgotten what was announced provisionally, I point out that that means one day's extra holiday.
Mrs. Beckett: I feel sure that the House will wish to thank the Leader of the House for his statement. I had not forgotten what was originally announced, but it is useful to be reminded. Am I right in assuming that there will be no parliamentary questions on the Thursday on which the House rises for the Whitsun recess?
On a number of recent business question days the Leader of the House has been good enough to say that he is trying to keep up a record of accepting one of our proposals a week, so may I offer him this week two long-standing options from which to choose? First, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we are seeking a debate in Government time on two Scottish issues, one of which is the important issue of water privatisation in Scotland, on which yet again fresh conflicting statements seem to be coming from the Scottish Office and elsewhere. As for the second Scottish issue, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have sought a debate in Government time on the White Paper on what the Government call the stocktaking exercise concerning powers in Scotland.
My second range of options involves defence. Despite the fact that we are devoting half of our Supply day to defence, we are aware, as we feel the Government should be, that it is now two years since we debated the defence estimates. The Leader of the House will be aware that such a form of debate offers an opportunity for wide-ranging discussion, and I am sure he knows that it has been suggested that the Government have avoided scheduling a debate for such a long time because they feel some embarrassment at the criticisms that they may face, perhaps even from their own party. However, I know that the Leader of the House takes the view that it is not up to the Government to run away from parliamentary scrutiny of difficult issues and that, indeed, they should ensure that the opportunity is offered. Especially in the light of what has happened to Swan Hunter today as a result of some defence decisions, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider finding time for a debate.
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends consider keeping the House informed by means of updating statements on the position in Bosnia?
Mr. Newton: I thank the right hon. Lady for the generally constructive spirit in which she again seems to approach her task, and for her kind comments about the constructive spirit in which she, rightly, thinks that I am approaching my task.
I shall take the right hon. Lady's questions in reverse order. I can certainly give her a general assurance that if it seemed right that a further statement should be made about significant developments concerning Bosnia, I should of course seek to arrange that.
I can assure the right hon. Lady that there is no question of the Government's seeking to avoid embarrassment on the defence estimates. The difficulty is that of fitting in the debate, but I shall certainly seek to do so, and we can continue to discuss the matter through the usual channels. The right hon. Lady's question was perhaps a little unkind in view of the fact that several days have been made available for discussing defence matters over the past month or two. If the anxiety was about embarrassment, I do not think that we would have scheduled those as we did.
The debates that the right hon. Lady seeks on Scottish matters, too, should be further discussed through the usual channels, although in the case of water privatisation it
954
would seem to me to be more sensible for a debate to take place when the Government have reached and announced conclusions.
In response to the right hon. Lady's specific first question, I can confirm that it is not proposed to take questions on Thursday 27 May.
Mr. Peter Luff: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1877 on fairer trade with the third world?
[That this House recognises that fair trade is as important as aid in tackling Third World poverty; notes that the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, which directly discriminates against poor countries' clothing and textile exports, denies poor people vital jobs; further notes that the EC has already agreed to start lifting quotas on clothing and textiles from East and Central Europe despite the failure to conclude a GATT agreement, while restrictions against the world's poorest countries have been extended once again; believes that the British Government, through its participation in the EC, the GATT negotiations and the G7 Summit in Tokyo this July, is well placed to take a lead in lifting trade barriers which discriminates against poor countries; and therefore urges Her Majesty's Government to press the EC to start the 10 year phase out of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, bringing out the poorest countries first and fastest.]
Does he agree with me that, although it is entirely right that the House should be concerned about the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, many millions of our fellow human beings throughout the world are suffering poverty, malnutrition and starvation as a result, in large part, of the unfair trading patterns in the world? Will he find time for an early debate in the House on this matter?
Mr. Newton: While I cannot promise my hon. Friend the early debate that he wants, although I will certainly bear in mind his request, I can most certainly join with him in the general proposition that an open multilateral trading system is of great importance to what is called the third world. Indeed, it is for that very reason, among others, that we as a Government, and I think the whole House, place so much importance on a satisfactory conclusion to the GATT round.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement this week, or at the latest next week, on water privatisation which in England and Wales has led to about 50,000 homes being disconnected and 10,000 cases of dysentery? In view of the recent reports about a possible Government U-turn on Scottish water privatisation, may we have a clear and unequivocal statement at the earliest opportunity that Scottish water will remain in full public ownership, otherwise water privatisation will do for this Government what Watergate did for Nixon?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said, partly explicitly and partly by implication, to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). All the options set out in the consultation paper called "Investing for Our Future" are being considered, and the appropriate time for debate, in my view, is when conclusions have been reached.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend find just a short slot to enable hon. Members to pay a tribute to our late hon. Friend Robert Adley? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] He was my neighbour in the House and my near neighbour, and I frequently had the honour and pleasure of driving him to and from the

955
House, particularly on days when he was far from well. He was one of the great characters of the House, a man of great courage, strength and determination. His wife Jane has been through it these past few weeks. I am sure that we would all like to send love to her and expressions of support to her family.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that you agree, Madam Speaker, that the response from both sides of the House to my hon. Friend's remarks shows that he is exactly right, and I feel that you too will wish to be associated with them. I certainly wish to be. I had a huge regard for Robert, and I believe that he will be missed on both sides of the House.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Leader of the House agree that, if sufficient members of the public in Denmark go along with the view of Her Majesty's Government that the Edinburgh decision makes no change whatsoever in their citizenship or national obligations, there may be need for a statement adjusting the business for a week today? Will he undertake that, if there is no acceptance of the question that is being posed to the Danes, that business will be changed?
Mr. Newton: I certainly do not anticipate that need, but obviously Her Majesty's Government always consider changes in circumstances as may be appropriate.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the great concern felt by several hon. Members at the delay in the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill. There is a lot of interest among my constituents in Chesham and Amersham and also by the corporation in London, and increasing concern about the delay. I hope that, as the consultants' reports are with Ministers, my right hon. Friend will give an undertaking that the Bill will be brought before the House very soon.
Mr. Newton: I am certain that my hon. Friend is aware of some observations that I made on that matter last week. As she rightly says, the consultants' report has been received and my right hon. Friends are considering its conclusions. I am afraid that I cannot today, much as I would wish to have the chance to hear her, go beyond what I said last week.
Mr. Max Madden: As the horrors of Bosnia continue unabated, may I press the Leader of the House to press the Prime Minister, as opposed to other Ministers, to make a statement early next week about what action the Government and the international community will take to end all aggression in Bosnia, to secure an effective ceasefire and to defend the so-called United Nations-protected areas?
Mr. Newton: It was within my hearing and, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman's that my right hon. Friend made some further observations—albeit briefly of the sort that are possible in Prime Minister's questions—only a few minutes ago. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and others had made it amply clear over many weeks that they are concerned to do everything that they practicably, possibly and sensibly can to achieve the objectives that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Mr. Barry Field: Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend, in the interests of open government, either to arrange a debate or to publish the arrangements by which various Departments bid for time and legislation in the Queen's Speech? There appears to be an ethos, supported throughout the House, that careers are judged on the quantity of legislation that is pressed through the House. If I judge the mood of the country correctly, there is a feeling that there should be a lighter regime altogether.
Mr. Newton: Although that issue is not, as it were, constitutionally tied to my present capacity, my hon. Friend's question is directed to the right quarter as it is a matter of public knowledge that I am Chairman of the Committee, whose initials are FLG, that examines those matters. I hope that when the proposals finally see the light of day my hon. Friend will feel that we have had some regard to his strictures. On the other hand, one has only to be present in this House week by week to know of the number of vigorous demands for legislation in particular that come even from those who are against legislation in general.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Is it not time that we had a debate about the serious crises that are building up in the former communist states? Has the Leader of the House seen the statement by Mr. Dashiyn Byambashurian, who resigned from the Great Hural and from his position as Prime Minister of Mongolia because he feared that the country was returning to communism? The crises in that country—and in many others—of finance, of shortage of fuel and of famine are so serious that the population are moving away from their centrally-heated homes and going back to live in medieval yurts which were used thousands of years ago. Is it not true that Britain, by promoting well-intentioned reforms in the former communist countries, is in grave danger of re-creating the tyrannies that they are designed to destroy?
Mr. Newton: All of us, I am sure, are concerned about many of the stories that we read about some of the countries that have been undergoing political and economic change. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that we shall have a debate on that matter, and certainly not next week.
Mr. David Madel: On next Wednesday's business on sub-post offices, is my right hon. Friend aware that wild, false rumours are running riot about possible wholesale closures of sub-post offices and the interruption of benefits and pensions? Would my right hon. Friend put on his former social security hat to ensure that the Government have an immediate advertising campaign in newspapers and on television to put the record straight and to state that sub-post offices will remain open and that pensions will still be paid —
Madam Speaker: Order. It is a very good try, but the hon. Gentleman is really asking a substantive question on that matter, which is not now the responsibility or the duty of the Leader of the House. If he asks a question about next week's business, that is another matter.
Mr. Madel: I thought that what I said might help next week's business in relation to Wednesday—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking an advertising campaign. What he should be seeking is a statement in next week's business. Is that possible?
Mr. Newton: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to my hon. Friend's request for him to make a particular point about the matter in the speech that he may have the opportunity to make next week. Apart from that, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what I thought were the clear-cut remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister an hour or so ago.
Mr. Nigel Jones: Can the Leader of the House reveal when the Bill on the security services and Government Communications Headquarters will be published? Will he find time for an early debate on the scrutiny of those services because many of the talented people who work in them feel aggrieved that they are unable to answer the allegations contained in newspapers this week?
Mr. Newton: I note the point that the hon. Gentleman makes in the latter part of his question, but cannot promise an early debate on that nor, for reasons that I am sure he will understand—not least because the Government's proposed programme of legislation for the next Session is currently under discussion—can I give him a precise date for the publication of a particular Bill.
Mr. David Lidington: Further to his answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), will my right hon. Friend convey to his ministerial colleagues the frustration and resentment of my constituents in Aylesbury and many thousands of other people in Buckinghamshire that the crossrail project is subject to so much delay and uncertainty? Will he give Ministers an early opportunity to say that this project has their approval and that they will press ahead with the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill?
Mr. Newton: I note genuinely that this is the third time that one of my hon. Friends has raised this matter in the course of a fortnight. I am sure that it will also have been noted by my right hon. Friends who, I think rightly, wish to have a proper opportunity to consider the consultants' report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be here to answer questions on Monday 24 May.
Mr. John McFall: The Leader of the House mentioned the FLG Committee. He will be aware, therefore, of correspondence between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding the privatisation proposals for 8,000 jobs in the Scottish Office and a potential threat to up to 50,000 jobs. The letter shows that several Cabinet Ministers are acting in concert to avoid public scrutiny of legislation which they would need for specific functions regarding privatisation and that, instead, they intend to produce an omnibus Bill in the Queen's Speech in October.
Given that what we are witnessing by these covert actions is the possible loss of hundreds of thousands of civil service jobs and the demise of the United Kingdom civil service as we know it, will the Leader of the House consult his colleagues and ensure that there is an urgent and extensive debate on this issue next week?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake that there will be an urgent and extensive debate on this matter next week, but I take note of the hon. Gentleman's question and will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the successful introduction of the council tax? Is he aware that in my constituency half the people who have telephoned the council are asking why their bills are so low and that the only serious complaint has come from elderly single people living in large houses who, although they face a serious problem, are perhaps not quite aware how much they would suffer if the Opposition's policy were introduced?
May we also discuss the preposterous claim by the Opposition, repeated in two successive party political broadcasts, that the council tax is £14 lower in Labour councils than in Conservative councils? Is not the truth that it is a statistical fiddle and that, if like is compared with like, that is to say, properties of the same value, the true position is that the tax is £107 lower in Conservative councils?
Mr. Newton: On the latter point, it is clear that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, has been forced to acknowledge on a number of occasions that the comparisons that he has made are completely bogus, for exactly the reason that my hon. Friend has given.
Mr. Doug Henderson: That is not true.
Mr. Newton: I have certainly not listened to everything that he has said, but I have read a good deal of it and that is the conclusion that I draw.
As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is a considerable achievement of my right hon. and hon. Friends and also of local authorities throughout the country that the council tax has been introduced as smoothly as it has been.
Mr. John Spellar: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1930 concerning May day?
[That this House appreciates the excellent weather that allowed the British people to celebrate and enjoy May Day on Monday 3rd May; and regrets the mean-spirited attempt by this Government to abolish this holiday, which is both a traditional British festival, and also celebrates the international solidarity of workers; and further deplores attampts to move the holiday into the cold, damp depths of autumn.]
Conservative Members have already commented on the effect that the abolition of the May day holiday could have on the hotel and leisure industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman prevail upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement next week on the future of May day, and perhaps persuade her to take a positive attitude rather than her normal small-minded, petty, spiteful one of any institution associated with working people?
Mr. Newton: Having worked in a ministerial capacity for quite some time with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, when we were both in a previous incarnation, I did not recognise her from the descriptions and adjectives that the hon. Gentleman applied to her. An announcement on the question of May day will be made in due course.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate soon on the comments made earlier today in

959
Baghdad by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) to the effect that he is not there to help in the release of the two British detainees? Is it not very worrying that Iraq is being seriously misled by the two unguided missiles that have been sent there?
Mr. Newton: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand why I hesitate before commenting on a statement reported from Baghdad which I have not had an opportunity to study. Certainly all of us would wish to see an effective effort made to resolve the problem that underlies my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Alex Salmond: May we debate again next week the issue of the enforcement of the days-at-sea restrictions on the fishing industry? Does the Leader of the House accept that one hour and 11 minutes on Tuesday night was neither the time nor the place in the agenda to deal with an issue as important as the days-at-sea restrictions? Does not the Leader of the House understand that the fishing representatives who attended the debate felt slighted by the truncated way in which the House dealt with an issue which affects the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and their families in coastal communities around Britain?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks. There has been substantial debate on this matter in relation to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, which underlay the orders debated earlier this week. The fact is that those orders were debated in the normal way for negative orders. I think that that was proper. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman managed to make substantial remarks in the course of the debate.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As the Prime Minister's answer about sub-post offices was substandard, is not it as well that we will have an Opposition debate on this subject next week? Why could we not have a debate in Government time as it is the Government's responsibility?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister having said what he said, I cannot quite understand the basis on which the hon. Gentleman makes that request. It is open to the Opposition to choose what they want to debate, and they have chosen that subject.
Mr. Brian Wilson: May I endorse the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for a debate on Scottish water, preferably prior to conclusions being reached?
May I push the Leader of the House on the Crossrail Bill and point out that if the Bill does not have a Second Reading in Government time very soon it will disappear? If the Government wish to kill the Bill, they should have the guts to do so; they should not allow it to go by default by not giving time for it to be debated. Many firms throughout the country will be given an economic kick-start if this and other major infrastructure projects are given the go-ahead.
Mr. Newton: I note that I now have a fourth Opposition Member to add to the growing list of Members pressing me on that matter. Nevertheless, I cannot be pushed, to use the hon. Gentleman's own word, any further this afternoon.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Given that environmental sustainability must henceforth be a fundamental principle in all economic policy, and given that Britain is a signatory to the Rio convention and committed to a sustainable development plan for Britain, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a debate on this subject—which will be of far-reaching importance for economic policies—preferably before July, when I believe that the draft version of the plan will be published?
Mr. Newton: I can do no more, with the greatest good will, than note the hon. Gentleman's request. The Government acknowledge that environmental issues are of considerable importance, even though they can generate a lot of controversy. I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Keith Hill: Will the Leader of the House add another name to the list of those calling for an early Second Reading debate on the Crossrail Bill? Is he aware that the Government's central London rail study identified crossrail as the most beneficial transport infrastructure project for London and that the private and public sectors are eager to push ahead with the scheme?
Mr. Newton: I will add the hon. Gentleman's name to the growing list. I am less sure about his hon. Friend from Wales, who I thought might want the crossrail across Cardiff bay.

Job Losses
4.41 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It concerns the frustration that Welsh hon. Members feel about the constant repetition of the example of Shotton and the loss of jobs in the steelworks there 10 years ago, together with inaccurate employment figures that are given for Shotton. At first, the Secretary of State for Wales—
Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the hon. Member would come to the point of order for me and not argue his case.
Mr. Morgan: The frustration we feel is that parliamentary convention prevents us from saying that a lie has been perpetrated or that the House has been misled. The problem is that the same theme is being used by the Secretary of State for Wales. He first used it during the coal industry debate, when he said that the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire coalfields did not have anything to worry about—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member please come to the point of order for me?
Mr. Morgan: I am concerned about the means available to Back Benchers to correct a totally incorrect impression that has been given. When jobs are lost in the shipbuilding industry in east Newcastle it is said, as the Prime Minister said today, that more jobs now exist in Shotton than existed when the steelworks were closed—
Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Morgan: In fact, the number of jobs there now is only 45 per cent. Of—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is a wily parliamentarian and I know full well that, in raising his point of order with me, he has his tongue in his cheek. I am not prepared to give him advice about procedure across the Floor of the House. He knows full well how to proceed in the matter. If he has a problem, he knows that I am always willing to have a chat with him in my office. My door is always open—most of the time, anyway.

Orders of the Day

  Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill
  Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment. Order for Third Reading read.
  4.43 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I am grateful to hon. Members for making such rapid progress in Committee with what is an excellent Bill. I am grateful to the Opposition parties, who have appreciated that the relief offered by the measure is greatly sought after by businesses throughout the country and will be welcomed by them.
  As we discovered on Second Reading, the Bill offers a further freeze on rate bills for 1993–94 in real terms. It means that businesses are spared increases of 20 per cent. in real terms where they have a new rateable value of £15,000 or more in London or £10,000 or more elsewhere. Businesses with values below those thresholds are spared 15 per cent. increases.
  It brings welcome relief to about 470,000 properties in England to the tune of £340 million in 1993–94 and £220 million in 1994–95, on top of the £1,250 million package that' was announced and passed through both Houses last year.
  The main beneficiaries will be businesses that have borne the brunt of increases following the 1990 revaluation, with the introduction of the unified business rate. It will include many shops and offices in towns and cities throughout the country, but especially in London and the south-east, where the valuation increases were largest in the valuation based on 1988 values, which turned out to be a high level in the market place. Those businesses can also look forward to the benefits of the new valuation orders on values in 1993, which will come into practice two years later, with parliamentary consent.
  The costs of the changes and benefits to business will be met in full out of taxation by the Government making additions to the non-domestic rating pool. Businesses will not experience a change in liability to pay until the commencement date, which we would like to be three weeks after Royal Assent, so giving authorities time to adjust their bills. That is an important reason why I welcome the assistance of the House in making rapid progress with the measure, because it means that businesses are that much nearer to getting the relief that they seek.
  The change in liability will have retrospective effect to 1 April, but in the meantime businesses should carry on paying the bills that they have been sent, until the House has completed all stages of the measure and the legislation is brought into effect.
  The businesses, as I said, are particularly concentrated in London and the south-east, but there is welcome relief for businesses right across the country which were experiencing quite sharp increases in their valuations as a result of the latest valuation for business premises.
  Of the 502,000 properties that will benefit from the measures, about 84,000 are in inner London, 44,000 in outer London, 128,000 in the rest of the south-east, 70,000

  963
  in the south-west, 30,000 in the eastern area, 31,000 in the east midlands, 25,000 in the west midlands, 39,000 in Yorkshire and Humberside, 35,000 in the north-west and 14,000 in the north of the country.
  As the House can see, the measure has something for businesses all over the country which suffered from the revaluation and will be welcome to them as a result. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House and I again express my gratitude for its rapid passage.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I am pleased to say that Opposition Members are continuing to support the Bill. Much was said on Second Reading by my hon. Friends about the need for the measure because of the way in which problems in the economy had made matters more difficult for businesses, particularly small businesses and especially in the south of the country, because they were faced with the largest increases in the business rate.
  The need to refer to that on Second Reading was even more evident following visits I paid to areas in the south in recent weeks. I visited places such as Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, Ipswich, Suffolk, Hampshire and Weston-super-Mare. Unfortunately, I did not visit Buckinghamshire. Perhaps I should have done so. The difficulties faced by small businesses became more obvious to me and it was clear that they needed relief from the increases in business rates. The voters in those areas expressed that view firmly last week in the county council elections, where the Conservatives felt the impact in the most damaging way.
  On Second Reading we had a thorough exchange of views about the need for the Bill, its content and some of the reservations that hon. Members on both sides had about it.
  On Second Reading the House noted that the transitional arrangements for the business rate has applied for two years—for 1990–91 and 1991–92—and that during that period it had been recognised that a further transitional period would be needed to provide additional relief for businesses that had suffered most from the increase in the business rate, which occurred at the same time as the recession. Last year, therefore, the Opposition supported the further transitional arrangements that were made for 1992–93.
  The House will have noted that the Opposition supported the transitional arrangements both on Second Reading and in Committee and that we are supporting them again on Third Reading. These arrangements are needed because of the depth and length of the recession. Even if there should be an economic recovery in the next 12 months, further legislation will probably be needed next year and the year after.
  A number of worries were voiced on Second Reading and I shall voice them again today. We are worried that the Government will renege on any commitment to maintain, in real terms, expenditure on local authority services that they have identified may be needed in future. The worry is that the Government will be unable to provide local authorities with the resources that they currently receive, which many people believe are already inadequate. As
  964
  business rate revenue next year is likely to fall, less money will be available to local authorities, which will lead to difficulties over local authority expenditure.
  The Government are struggling to maintain the rate poundage at its present level, partly because of the effects of the recession and the transitional arrangements. Small businesses are worried that the Government may be tempted to renege on the 1988 regulations which kept the increase in rate poundage in line with the rate of inflation.

  The transitional arrangements will eventually, of course, come to an end. If they were to come to a sudden end, the consequences for a number of businesses which now enjoy the benefit of this relief could be extremely serious. That worry is not addressed by the Bill. Therefore, the small business community is looking for an assurance that there will be no sudden end to the transitional relief scheme.
  People are also becoming increasingly worried about the lack of local democracy. Local people are no longer able to make decisions that affect them; they are unable to determine the kind of services that they want for their community and the way in which those services should be financed. It is not only those who were campaigning in the local elections, or Opposition Members, who say that. Many business leaders are saying it, too, as well as the Institute of Directors and the chambers of commerce. They believe that the determination of the business rate should be left to local communities.
  The Government should examine the possibility of giving that responsibility back to local communities. I can give the people of this country a commitment: that the Opposition, when in government, will address that important issue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman says anything else, I remind him that Third Reading speeches are supposed to be about the contents of the Bill. He is going rather wider than the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not intend to steer myself away from the Bill's contents.
  The business community believes that the effects of the Bill will be beneficial. I predict, though, that similar legislation will be needed next year. Additional legislation will also be needed to deal with the revaluation of business properties—effective from 1995, but based on rental values this year. Revaluation will give rise to a number of anomalies with which the House will have to deal at some future date.
  Notwithstanding our reservations, some of which I have intentionally expressed and others to which I referred inadvertently, we are happy to give the Bill a Third Reading.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Unfortunately, I was not here for the Second Reading debate, though I read the report of it in Hansard. Nevertheless, I attended diligently throughout the Committee proceedings and enjoyed them enormously.
  I support the contents of the Bill, largely because of the effect that it will have on my constituency. which has been hit hard by the recession. It is an area that has traditionally enjoyed high employment and a high level of business

  965
  expansion. The shock of the recession had a disproportionate effect on businesses in my community. That is why the Bill is so welcome. Businesses in my constituency are committed to being among the first to come out of the recession.
  Business needs a degree of certainty for its expansion plans. The Chancellor's announcement and the contents of the Bill will go a long way towards providing local businesses with the confidence to make an extra effort and thus reduce unemployment.
  The Bill builds upon the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Its importance is that it limits the rise in business rates to the level of inflation. I moved from an area where rateable values are traditionally low to one where they are traditionally high. I am only too well aware, therefore, of the effects that a move towards full valuation would have on local businesses.
  Firms in Brentwood and Ongar need to be encouraged to take on more staff. I am acutely aware of the fact that 3,056 people in my constituency are unemployed. That figure is very small compared with unemployment elsewhere in the country. Nevertheless, it is my responsibility, and that of the House, to encourage local businesses to take on more people. The Bill will, I believe, encourage local firms to do precisely that.
  I can foresee clearly what would happen if the Bill were not passed. In the past, business decisions were taken bearing in mind the effects of local taxation. The Bill ensures that business decisions can be taken which ignore the question of local taxation when considering the siting of an office or a factory. I recall a great disparity between offices in one part of the country and identical offices in other parts of the country. Under the old system, businesses were squeezed by local councils until—to use Lord Healey's immortal words—the pips squeaked. The system gave rise to unfair competition and unbalanced markets. Local firms were forced to look round the country for areas that had low levels of taxation. The Bill avoids that situation. It encourages business people to stay in their local communities.
  Let me cite a classic case. I recall a firm that had a site in Kensington and Chelsea and a site in Sheffield. In one case the poundage was 1 17p and in the other it was 34'7p. That sort of situation does not encourage business people to stay in their local communities. I know of business men who literally took factory roofs off to avoid paying rates. That kind of activity does not encourage expansion. The Bill is necessary as it ensures that rate levels can be kept down. I have received from the chambers of commerce in Brentwood and Ongar representations to the effect that they are in favour of freezing the level of taxation.
  I have much pleasure in recommending the Bill to the House and hope that hon. Members will feel able to support it.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Nigel Jones: I too welcome the measures, which will provide some help for hard-pressed businesses. I am delighted to hear that 502,000 businesses throughout the country will benefit. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), whose remarks on Second Reading I read with amusement when I was in Cornwall to fulfil some long-standing
  966
  engagements connected with the county council elections. It is clear from the results of last Thursday's elections that my visit was time well spent.
  The only question mark over the Bill relates to whether it does enough. In the corresponding debate last year, the Minister said:
  "I know that the recession has created difficulties for many businesses…The Government have therefore decided that their costs this year should not be worsened…
  We propose a one-year freeze to provide a breathing space."—[Official Report, 19 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 204.] The fact that the Minister is now providing another year's breathing space shows that perhaps not enough was done last year.
  Sadly, last year's green shoots of recovery faded away. The Government misjudged the situation then and the result was fatal for many thousands of businesses. This year there are signs that the number of businesses going under is beginning to decrease. I welcome that trend. Again we are hearing of the famous green shoots. During the election campaign someone told me that they were election green shoots. It is rather odd that these shoots always appear in the spring. I hope that this year's are real and that they will grow strong. Only when that happens shall we be able to get Britain back to work. Only then will hon Members be able to start to argue about where best to invest the new money, instead of scrapping about where cuts should be made.
  With regard to recovery, the jury is still out. While I was travelling down to Cornwall two weeks ago I heard the financial director of Tarmac interviewed on the "Today" programme early in the morning. Having been asked whether there were any green shoots, he replied:
  "Yes, but we've seen green shoots every spring for the last four years, and they have all faded away."
  On this occasion I am prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. Good luck to the green shoots and good luck to the many thousands of businesses all over the country which must survive and grow. I must put this question to the Minister: if, in the next few months, there is any sign that the recovery is faltering, will he come back to the House and announce further measures, including further non-domestic rate reductions, to help companies to survive?
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Members who have contributed to this brief debate.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) suggested that we shall need further legislation next year. I hope not. The signs of recovery are most encouraging. Business reports from around the country imply that output is rising and that there are opportunities for more business activity. That is what we all wish to see. I remind the House that this measure will continue to provide substantial benefits next year. Taking last year's provision and this year's provision together, the figure is about £355 million. We hope that that will be enough to do the job.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North asked about real levels of local authority expenditure and business rate pool compensation. As he is aware, this measure provides for full compensation to the pool for the expense of the concessions made. Details of real levels of local government expenditure for next year will be announced at the normal time and in the normal way. Statements regarding the public expenditure figures that

  967
  we set out last autumn will give the hon. Gentleman some guidance about Government plans. As he will see there, we are not planning savage cuts in local authority expenditure, as he and some of his hon. Friends like to suggest. There is no intention to renege on the essential 1988 promise that, under the new system, business rates would be allowed to rise only at the rate of inflation. That was the kernel of the new scheme. That was the promise given to and widely welcomed by the business community. It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and it is what the legislation says, with the necessary exception of revaluations—revaluations are always the exception—which have been handled through transitional relief and through this measure.
  The hon. Gentleman is aware that transitional schemes have been set out for the most recent revaluation—that of 1988, which came into effect in 1990.I have told the House in the past—I renew the commitment—that, as we know the details of the new valuation based on 1993, and as we think about its introduction for 1995, we shall ask ourselves whether there is any need for a new or further scheme of transitional relief in the event of very large changes which we think would be difficult to implement in one go. I cannot say at the moment. I do not know, and I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman knows, what changes might occur as a result of that revaluation. We will make our judgment at the time and will put the matter to the House in the usual debate.
  I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you will allow me to wander into the area of local democracy, but I should like to say that the retail prices index pledge is important. I am not quite sure how the hon. Gentleman was marrying his wish to sustain the RPI link, which I entirely support, with his wish to give local councils discretion to fix the level of the rate. What discretion
  968
  would they be given if the level of the permitted increase were specified in legislation? This is a matter that will need to be clarified in another debate or at another time.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) for his strong support for the measure. He has rightly said that small businesses are crucial in constituencies like his own. Indeed, they are crucial in constituencies up and down the country. It is small businesses above all that will welcome the measure. For a small business man faced with an increase in the valuation of single business premises, the cost increase is very big if the full impact of the change has to be taken. It is very likely that large national businesses with a variety of properties do rather better from the averages, or the swings and roundabouts, of the valuation system.
  The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) criticised me for bringing to the House measures last year and then coming back for a second go in the current year. That is necessary, given the way in which transitional relief and the previous legislation worked. I would have hoped that his party would have welcomed the fact that in his Budget the Chancellor rightly saw that business would appreciate a further year's relief on top of the relief already granted.
  Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman was less cynical in his comments on recovery and green shoots. I welcome his desire to see recovery grow and strengthen, as we all do. I believe that the recovery is developing and that the measures will make an important contribution to improving business progress and prosperity over the ensuing year.
  Therefore, I hope that we will not need to do the same next year, but I remind the House that the benefits of the legislation will live beyond the current year. That will be more than welcome to the business community.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I regret the need to stand at the Dispatch Box today to introduce a necessary Bill. Were it not for the survival of barbarism in the form of terrorist violence, there would not have been any need for such a Bill. It is a melancholy reflection on life in the latter part of the 20th century that there are still individuals who, in modern democratic societies, being unable to achieve their objectives through the democratic process of the ballot box, are prepared to throw aside the conventions of civilised society and to bomb, maim and kill indiscriminately. One consequence is damage to buildings as well.
  The Bill is in response to the spate of terrorist bombings which have occurred recently and which are merely the British facet of an international problem. I was born just after one of the worst wars that the human race has ever suffered, after which we all thought that we would not see such barbarities committed again in Europe in our lifetime. Regrettably, I have grown up against a backdrop of political terrorism in Europe through groupings such as the Baader-Meinhof gang in the 1960s in Germany. On both sides of the House we all deplore and regret that feature of our lives. I am happy that there is a bipartisan or indeed a multipartisan consensus to the extent that we are all united in our desire and, indeed, our determination to prevent such acts of violence from having an impact on our political decisions in so far as those decisions might be thought in any way to involve the bowing of the head or the knee to the achievement of the political objectives of the terrorists who are responsible for so much damage and tragedy.
  The Bill is a short enabling measure. I do not propose to speak for very long, but I shall describe the arrangements through which Government reinsurance for acts of terrorism will be provided. I shall also say something about a number of issues which I know concern some hon. Members. A summary of the arrangements was tabled on Tuesday 11 May in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I hope that that has been for the convenience of the House because, although I say so myself, I doubt that hon. Members will derive much profit simply from reading the text of the Bill. The meat which surrounds the skeleton is the way in which the reinsurance scheme has been constructed. That does not require us to deal with it in statutory form today.
  Last November the insurance industry announced that, with effect from 1 January this year, it would cease to renew or to provide new insurance cover on industrial and commercial property which included provision for damage or loss caused by acts of terrorism. That withdrawal of cover was for prudent commercial reasons, following the loss of their own reinsurance protection predominantly from large European reinsurers, against the background of a sharp contraction in reinsurance capacity world wide and worsening claims experience in mainland Great Britain. It is a typical reaction of the international
  970
  reinsurance market that during its cyclical reductions in capacity it not only increases prices but declines the least attractive business.
  That development was understandably of great concern to British industry and commerce. We received many representations from individuals who were concerned at being unable to insure their property, which meant that they would have to assume the full measure of risk against damage from explosions caused by terrorists. In those circumstances, the Government could not stand idly by and we joined enthusiastically in discussions with the insurance industry and with those who at the end of the day have to pay the bills for the insurance that benefits them. We have put together a scheme which we believe will be effective and which will for ever deny terrorists of all kinds the fruits of their satanic endeavours to bring the country and its commerce to a standstill through explosions, wherever they take place.
  The Government concluded that it was necessary to ensure the continued availability of insurance cover for loss and damage arising from acts of terrorism. That cover could continue to be available only if the insurers could be reinsured themselves. On 21 December 1992 the President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), announced that the Government would act as reinsurer of last resort to insurers of industrial and commercial property in Great Britain, with effect from 1 January this year. Since then, the arrangements necessary to give effect to the announcement have been developed to an advanced state. My right hon. Friend laid a minute before the House on 14 January explaining the reasons for entering into a contingent liability ahead of specific legislation.
  A number of general principles underlie the Government's intervention. The Government seek to avoid disruption to industry and commerce which might be caused by lack of terrorism cover. The arrangements are to deal with the consequences of a market failure, but they are intended to minimise disruption of the insurance and reinsurance markets. The Government's involvement will last as long as is necessary to remedy that failure, but equally the arrangements are temporary and the Government will withdraw as soon as adequate sources of commercial reinsurance are available once more.
  It is important to recognise that the arrangements are not a state aid. Over their lifetime, the arrangements are expected to be at nil cost to the taxpayer. The Government seek not to expose the insurers to undue risks which might threaten their solvency. Clearly, that would benefit no one and could cause a much wider collapse than would occur simply as a result of failure to insure or reinsure commercial and industrial property itself. If the solvency of insurance companies generally were adversely affected, the shock waves would go well beyong the centres of cities and would affect the whole country.
  The arrangements are to cover the consequences of a market failure, but our aim is to maintain the insurance and reinsurance markets in effective operation and to fund the scheme ultimately from the premiums charged to those who derive the benefit of insurance and reinsurance for industrial and commercial property which is under threat of damage from terrorist explosions and the like.
  The arrangements contain a number of necessary restrictions on the behaviour of the policy holder. Where such measures exist, they are the minimum consistent with the protection of the taxpayer who in a sense is the

  971
  ultimate reinsurer. It is in the nature of commercial insurance that sophisticated policy holders will endeavour to be selective about the risks that they transfer to insurers, but the cardinal principle of insurance is the spreading of risk. In conditions of some market failure, risk needs to be widely spread if the interests of the taxpayer are to be protected.
  I should make it clear that this is a reinsurance scheme, not compensation. If insurers do not buy the proper insurance cover, the Government will not entertain claims for compensation from them in the event of loss or damage. Although the Government have intervened, the solution that we have put together is fundamentally a market one.
  The structure and operation of the arrangements are described in the summary tabled on II May, to which I referred a few moments ago. Briefly, insurers wishing to offer property insurance, including terrorism cover, will become members of a mutual reinsurance company, Pool Reinsurance Company Ltd. That company will reinsure all terrorism risks situated in Great Britain borne by its insurer members and for which an additional insurance premium has been paid by the insured. In turn, the Secretary of State will reinsure Pool Reinsurance Company Ltd.
  The company will take an entirely commercial approach to applications for membership. In principle, all insurers operating in the United Kingdom will be eligible for membership, including Lloyds syndicates and overseas insurers. Conversely, membership will not be compulsory if insurers do not wish to join. An important feature for smaller firms is that their basic property damage policy will provide £100,000 of cover for buildings, contents and business interruption automatically and without the need to pay an additional premium. The insured will have the choice of buying extra terrorism cover beyond the £100,000 per section as an addition to their property insurance policy for which an additional premium will be paid.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Can my hon. Friend clarify what he means by membership? He said that membership will not be compulsory but voluntary. Is he referring to membership of the company in a technical sense? Who will be the shareholders, and will they be fixed?
  Mr. Hamilton: The shareholders of the company will be those insurance companies that are reinsuring through the company. Consequently, membership of the company—as with any company—will be fluid over time as it will be a company limited by guarantee.
  The aim of this scheme is for the Government to stand behind the insurance industry that wishes to provide the service of insurance cover for terrorism risks to ordinary members of the public who would otherwise be without the opportunity to take advantage of that service. I shall say a little more about the structure of the company in a moment.
  As I said, the insured will have to pay for extra terrorism cover beyond the £100,000 per section. Consequently, we shall reinforce the market, rather than destroy it. That is why our ultimate aim—if that proves possible—is to withdraw again so that there is a reinsurance market capable of taking up the reins without
  972
  the need for any Government assistance. Ultimately, we hope that all terrorist groups will draw a conclusion from a quarter of century of failure, in the case of the IRA, to move the British Government an inch towards the realisation of their objectives. I hope that the Bill will receive a warm welcome in such terms that anyone who might seek to change the political system in the United Kingdom by the bomb and the bullet will not derive any superficial advantage.
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: The key to the success of the scheme relates to how soon the Government wish to withdraw from it. If the Government want an early withdrawal, higher premiums may have to be paid to get the money back.
  Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend perhaps misunderstands what I am saying. We do not seek to be involved permanently in the scheme, but I must make it absolutely clear that the Government will stand behind insurance companies for as long as is necessary. We shall not in any way be deflected from the achievement of the purposes which lie behind the Bill by considerations of cost. Clearly, the cost to the taxpayer of the collapse of the commercial economic system of the United Kingdom, without having some mechanism of this sort to preserve stability, would be incalculably greater than whatever sums might have to flow from the taxpayer in the short term to iron out the fluctuations in income and expenditure of Pool Reinsurance Company.
  Although we have tried to construct a scheme whereby there is a commercial involvement of the companies that provide insurance cover and of the Government—in certain circumstances we intend to charge a premium for the service that we provide—we hope that, ultimately, there will be no cost to the taxpayer and that the cost to the industry and, indeed, the insured will be a small portion of the total outgoings. The spreading of the risk as widely as possible, as we envisage through the scheme, will mean that a large number of individuals who are paying into the scheme will have to pay a sum which, admittedly, will be more than they have paid in the past. In the past, terrorist cover was thrown in with a policy at no extra charge and no one had to consider the matter because we were never subjected to significant risks.
  It is inevitable that costs will be greater than they have been because the cost in the past has been zero to the insured. We hope and expect that such costs will be modest and easily absorbed, especially—to follow the points made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities in the previous debate—as the economy is beginning to recover and the gross national product will rise with it. That will tend to more than offset any increased costs from the insurance sector. I do not wish to turn this debate in any way into a cause of controversy, so I will not pursue those dangerous lines of argument any further.
  To return to the points that I was making earlier about the nature of the scheme that Pool Reinsurance Company will operate and the membership of the company, the insurer will be required as a condition of membership to remit all additional premiums to the company, which will hold and invest those premiums. The company will be reinsured by the Government, who will charge a premium —payment of which will be deferred until such time as the company has built up a stabilising fund of £1 billion. The

  973
  premium charged by the Government as reinsurer will normally be 10 per cent. of premiums received by the company, unless what I might call an experience premium equivalent to the claims paid by the Government is greater. The deferred premiums charged on either basis will bear interest until they are paid.
  When there are claims, the insurers will bear the first £100,000 under each section of the basic property policy and recover claims beyond that amount from the company. Such claims will be paid out of the premiums received. If those resources are exhausted, the company will raise a levy on its members of up to an equivalent of 10 per cent. of the premiums that they have remitted. If the levy and any investment income is also fully used, the company will claim on its reinsurance contract with the Government. The scheme is simple and can be broken down into segments of insurance, reinsurance and retrocession of the insurance agreement.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: My right hon. Friend and other hon. Members will know of my interest in this matter as a member of the council of Lloyd's and an underwriting member of Lloyd's of London. My right hon. Friend explained that the scheme is simple. He has made it clear that the scheme will not apply to Northern Ireland, where there is a different scheme. Can he explain why it is appropriate that there should be a separate scheme for the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall certainly do that. An interesting fact that I discovered about the situation in Northern Ireland as a result of background work for the Bill is that compensation arrangements have existed there for 300 years to cover the loss and damage caused by what might be called terrorist activity. We did not think it sensible to apply the same kind of scheme in Great Britain, which differs from Northern Ireland in many respects. It is a matter of horses for courses. The Northern Ireland compensation arrangements have worked very well during the current emergency, but we foresee no circumstances in which we would need such a scheme in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The extent to which we shall need to draw on the arrangements laid down in the Bill remains to be seen. We naturally hope that the terrorists will draw the logical inference from our readiness to act and will give up the struggle. I suppose that it is rather too much to expect psychopaths to think in a logical way, but they should be in no doubt that we will not allow the country to grind to a halt as a result of their activities in the city centres or anywhere else.
  We shall react accordingly in any circumstances which may arise in the future, but for the time being we think that the scheme for which we now seek statutory authority will be effective in meeting the challenge presented to us in Great Britain. As I have said, we have designed a separate scheme to meet the different circumstances in Northern Ireland, although those circumstances arise from the same cause. Let me add that Northern Ireland will never be detached from the United Kingdom without a democratic vote by the majority there, freely given. The bomb and the bullet will never achieve that objective, certainly so long as the present Government remain in office, and I am sure that I also speak for the Labour party—should it ever be
  974
  favoured with the opportunity to govern this country again—when I say that this bipartisan policy will be maintained.
  If the Pool Reinsurance Company achieves an underwriting surplus in any year, after deducting the Government premium due for that year, it can distribute 10 per cent. of that surplus to its members in proportion to the premiums that they have remitted.
  Clause 1(1) of the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make payments in fulfilment of the obligations into which he has entered under the agreement to provide reinsurance cover. The clause also empowers the Secretary of State to make payments under guarantees that he may give. It is envisaged that he might wish to give guarantees to lenders, to ensure that the Pool Reinsurance Company could make prompt payment of claims from its members. Entering into the agreement and any guarantees would be subject to Treasury approval.
  Clause 1(2) requires the agreement with the Pool Reinsurance Company to be laid before the House after the passing of the Bill, and as soon as it is entered into. Clause 1(3) requires Government premiums from the company to be remitted to the Consolidated Fund. Clause 2(1) defines the reinsurance arrangements to which the Act would apply: they involve risks of damage to property in Great Britain arising from acts of terrorism. Clause 2(2) defines the acts of terrorism concerned, and clause 3 provides that the Act does not extend to Northern Ireland —where, as I have explained, separate arrangements operate.
  I want now to comment on a number of matters which have aroused concern in some quarters. Buyers of insurance are naturally anxious to minimise costs. The premium increases appear large in some cases as a proportional increase over the premium charged last year. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), however, insurance premiums will still represent a very small proportion of total business costs and will represent good value overall.
  Some illustrative examples may be helpful to the House. First. I take the example of a city centre office block insured for £10 million. The extra terrorism premium is typically £8,000 per year, up to a maximum of £12,000. Away from city centres, that would fall to £1,600 per year. By contrast, a typical annual maintenance charge would be £165,000 and the rent on such a block would be up to £2 million a year. In other words, the terrorism premium is equivalent to less than two days' rent.
  The logic of that, for those who seek to bring the country to a halt by means of terrorist action, is that although those extra costs are unwelcome and an irritant —at a time of recession any extra cost is unwelcome and could have undesirable effects on employment, disrupt business, and so on—their chances of achieving their objectives in any meaningful way by means of explosions and damage to commercial buildings are so small as to be almost infinitesimal.
  Equivalent figures for a £100 million block are a terrorism premium of £50,000, rising possibly to £75,000. On such a block there will typically be a maintenance charge of £1·3 million and an annual rental of up to £19 million. So the extra premiums that I mentioned, even in cases of that kind, are quite modest compared with other costs.
  Work has also been undertaken to gauge the point at which increases in insurance premiums would distort

  975
  location decisions. It is certainly not the Government's wish to make insurance premiums themselves a cause of businesses moving from one location to another. On the other hand, premiums will also need to follow the normal insurance principle of being related to perceived levels of risk. Premium rates are being reviewed now, and will be reviewed thereafter at least annually. In the present circumstances, the next price movement is almost certain to be upwards, but I would expect the price structure to evolve over time and prices to go down as well as up. Commercial buyers of insurance should bear in mind that —as I believe some already recognise—their premiums were about to rise sharply in any event, following a period in the insurance cycle when many insurers were losing money heavily on commercial lines.
  The arrangements envisaged have a number of other advantages. By charging a premium for the reinsurance cover, the Government are both protecting the taxpayer and enabling the business community to carry on as usual despite terrorism. If no premium were charged, the arrangements would be permanent, as no commercial reinsurer could ever compete with reinsurance that was provided free of charge. The arrangements will create headroom which will allow commercial reinsurers to re-enter the market and, over time, allow the Government to withdraw. That is fundamental to our conception of the scheme. By deferring the paying of the premium until a sizeable fund has built up, the price should eventually settle at a lower and more stable level than would be the case if no buffer were ever created.
  Furthermore, adapting an insurance solution to what is essentially an insurance problem means that the expertise of the insurance industry can be harnessed in settling claims speedily and fairly both for claimants and for those who bear the costs. If we were to introduce a compensation scheme, there could be greater delays and more inconvenience to those who, following damage and loss, want to get back to business as quickly as possible. In general, the market is likely to be more responsive than Government to spasmodic convulsions of that kind.
  A number of groups have come forward seeking relief from the premiums being charged. I know that that worries many hon. Members. Of course, it would be nice to be popular with them by telling the Pool Reinsurance Company to accede to those requests as they arise and to let the taxpayer foot the bill but, as my hon. Friends know, it is no business of the Government to seek to be popular. Consequently, we have designed a scheme which may constitute a hard road, but which we believe in the long-term to be in the best interests of the entire country.
  Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend advances his argument extremely well. There is a cost that should reasonably fall on commerce and business—as my hon. Friend knows, I have advanced that argument forcefully in recent days—but does my hon. Friend agree that it is also crucial that all businesses should take advantage of the pool reinsurance facility and that the premium charged should not be a disincentive for them to do so?
  Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with the second of my hon. Friend's two points. The premium charged should not be a disincentive against taking advantage of the
  976
  scheme placed before potential insurers. Naturally, I hope that all people who feel themselves to be at risk from such damage or loss will take advantage of the insurance opportunity that exists. It is not the Government's intention to force people to take out insurance. If they choose to assume the risk themselves, that is a commercial decision that they must take.
  I shall risk saying that it would certainly be in someone's commercial interests normally to take out such insurance. I am a great believer in insurance, but everyone has to make his own calculations. Clearly, companies expose themselves to significant risk in the event of an explosion. If the premium is modest, it should not prove a disincentive—it would be in people's interests to take advantage of the insurance.
  We could make ourselves popular by acceding to the requests that have been made and let the taxpayer foot the bill. The logic of such an approach is that there is such upward pressure on public expenditure for the indefinite future that the same individuals, in their capacity as taxpayers, might find different reasons to place us in an unpopular light at times of greater political sensitivity—for example, when our seats are up for election at the next general election, whenever that may be.
  I do not think that there is an easy answer to the problem. Apart from the implications for public expenditure, there is the question of how the insurers can explain special treatment for one group of policy holders to the remainder of their policy holders. There will also be the increased cost of operating a more complex scheme —success for one group is likely to encourage others, which could lead to a further erosion of premium income and the need for more premium increases for those taking advantage of the service. Such narrowness of scope runs counter to the insurance concept of spreading the risk and would also lead to problems of definition and qualification. As Minister with responsibility for deregulation, when designing the scheme I sought to reduce the amount of bureaucratic obfuscation and the cost of administration, and to make the scheme as simple as possible, as widely available as possible and as cheap as possible.
  There has been only one amendment to the price tariff since it was introduced—to deal with the problem of blocks of flats. The insurers' original intention was to exclude private policy holders from the scope of their exclusion so that they would continue to receive terrorism cover for no extra charge. Although flat dwellers normally regard themselves as private policy holders, blocks of flats are commonly insured by service companies and property-owning companies, and thus treated as commercial customers. Individual private residents were therefore having an extra terrorism premium passed on to them. After further consideration of the costs and risks, the Pool Reinsurance Company reduced the premiums charged for blocks of flats and the move was announced in a written reply by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 4 March. Blocks of flats with a sum insured value of up to £2·5 millions will be covered by the insurer for no extra premium. Above that level, the premium has been reduced to about one ninth of the rate for industrial and commercial premises in London and one quarter of the rate elsewhere, so no individual policy holder should face a premium increase of more than £10 to £20 for the normal range of property values.

  977
  I should like to clear up some confusion about the availability of cover for churches, which are eligible to be covered by the arrangements. It is for the individual church authorities to decide whether to cover specific churches by paying an additional terrorism premium. It so happens that the chief executive of one of the insurers specialising in covering church property is a member of the board of the Pool Reinsurance Company. Therefore, special arrangements were made some time ago to permit another specialist insurer of churches to remit its premiums to the Pool Reinsurance Company.
  Mr. David Trimble: The Minister is explaining the distinction between the insurance of commercial operations and the insurance of private operations. What would be the position of those taxi drivers who lost their vehicles through terrorist operations at the time of the Bishopsgate bomb? Are they classified as commercial operators and thus covered by the scheme, or as private ones? I believe that, at the time, they were classified as private and thus not covered by insurance. To take the argument one stage further, what about the private citizen whose car is commandeered in that way? Will he be covered by the scheme?
  Mr. Hamilton: The Bill seeks to deal with the problem of insurance cover not being available in the market for damage to commercial buildings. It has never been the case that cover for terrorist risks was not available when cars were damaged—as in the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman. It is not the Government's purpose to prevent the market from providing a solution. If it were proved that such cover was not available, we would be prepared to consider representations on the subject. However, I understand that at present such insurance cover is available and that no one has been refused it. As insurance premium rates have been rising for a variety of reasons, which will be known to the hon. Gentleman, larger amounts of money may be involved. However, the insurance business is a competitive one—a large number of companies provide a variety of products and it should be perfectly possible for individuals who feel that they are at risk to obtain insurance protection against that risk.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Minicab drivers can obtain either comprehensive or third party insurance for their cabs. Drivers with third party insurance are unable to claim compensation from the insurance companies in such cases because third party insurance relates to someone other than the insured. Later in the debate I hope to raise cases which have occurred recently in my constituency. Will the Government consider examining such cases, which involve people's livelihoods?
  Mr. Hamilton: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the drivers should buy comprehensive insurance and they would then be covered. It is up to each individual to decide for himself the level of insurance cover that he wants and to bear in mind the risks that he runs by not taking out cover. We all have to take such decisions. I have one car that is insured comprehensively and another car that is covered under third party, fire and theft insurance. I have taken that decision bearing in mind the car's value and whether I would seek to replace it if it were damaged as a result of an accident for which I was responsible. It is up to each individual to determine his requirements.
  978
  I hope that I have answered the question posed by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), whose presence today I welcome. Although the Bill relates to Great Britain, the hon. Gentleman's presence turns this into a United Kingdom debate. I always welcome the presence of Northern Ireland Members in debates in the House as it serves as a practical expression of this country's unity. That, in itself, is an act of defiance against the IRA and others who seek to detach the Province from the United Kingdom by their undemocratic methods.
  I believe that the Bill and the scheme that we have developed represent a clear and unmistakable signal both to business and to terrorists of all persuasions. To business in London and throughout the country, the Bill is a signal that the Government are determined to ensure that the normal insurance mechanism will continue to work, so that business assets destroyed or damaged for whatever reason can be reconstructed or replaced without delay. To overseas investors in the United Kingdom I say the same. To the terrorists, it is a signal that business and Government together will not permit wanton criminal damage, whatever its cause, to interfere with normal commercial life for a moment longer than is necessary.
  I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I shall pick up where the Minister left off. We fully agree that terrorism cannot impose its will on the British people by acts of violence against property or person. The great tragedy of recent disasters has been the loss of life, for which we grieve and which creates widows or orphans, not a political solution. Unfortunately, that message has not penetrated elsewhere; but one message that can penetrate is that the people of the United Kingdom will not bend the knee or bow the head to terrorism in any guise. The problems of the people of Northern Ireland are, like all other problems, subject to a political solution which, as the Minister said, can come only by the ballot box and by majority vote. We are entirely in agreement with the Government on that.
  The Bill must be seen in the context of how insurance markets are coming to terms with many of the disasters that struck at the end of the past decade and which affected the so-called London catastrophe market—to which reinsurers refer as the non-proportional excess of loss market. It has suffered a dramatic shrinkage of capacity —a shrinkage to which the President of the Board of Trade referred when he made his original statement on the Government being the reinsurer of last resort.
  This dramatic shrinkage has also affected premium rates. The shrinkage resulted from a series of catastrophes which, with our short memories, we may already have forgotten: the Piper Alpha oil rig explosion of July 1988; hurricane Hugo; the Philips Pasadena refinery explosion; and the San Francisco earthquake. They all had an impact on the reinsurance market and showed how we live in and are part of a global market. They also had an effect on the retrocession market, as it came to be called, and they combined with the losses suffered by Lloyd's of London.
  Before 1987, an insured loss of about $1 billion occurred only once every few years; now it occurs each year. The reinsurance market reacted to the events which brought about the general shortage of capacity and led to some reinsurers withdrawing from the scheme at the end of last year.

  979
  I welcome the fact that the Bill is retrospective as far back as I January and thus covers the niche left in the market by the withdrawal of those reinsurers. I also echo the Government's hope that, as a result of the mechanisms put in place by the Bill, some confidence will be restored to the reinsurance market. European reinsurers must understand that it is for them to come back into this type of risk, thereby, at first, providing competition for the Government and in the end allowing the Government to withdraw.
  I agree with the idea that the Bill is a mechanism designed to help the reinsurance markets of the world, which should be big and confident enough to return to this sector.
  On a lighter note, I was struck by the use of the word "retrocessionaire" as a description of the Government's role as a reinsurer of the last resort. I had hoped that hon. Members, having read "The House Magazine"—this week's issue contains an article by me on France—would come flooding into this debate from the bars and corridors of the House. I see the Government Whip shaking his head —he is probably right. Still, the idea of pro and anti-Maastrichteers and marketeers, of Europhobes and Europhiles, coming to the Chamber to debate "retrocessionaire" tickled my fancy.
  As for the debate on Maastricht next week, I should like to be here in person to abstain—but I will not be. [Interruption.] I am told that an abstention is the same as a vote one way or the other. The Bill lays down no geographical restrictions on the location of the head office of an applicant, which means that membership of Pool Reinsurance will be open to continental Europeans as well as offshore Europeans.
  It pleases the Opposition that the Government are indulging in some intervention. We remain an interventionist party, so when we see the Government intervening we are moderately gratified and encouraged. Often enough, we have sat here and seen the Government, like Pontius Pilate, wash their hands. Sometimes they have wrung their hands like Scrooge; but on this occasion they have taken a firm grip on the problem. They have taken action and in that they have our full support.
  The Minister rightly balanced the mechanisms needed in respect of the margin requirements. In the past three or four years, the insurance companies have faced difficulties in this area because of the massive claims made against them. The Minister did not, however, mention article 85 of the treaty of Rome, relating to competition. He may have seen comments in the press to the effect that the Bill may have implications for EC competition law.
  The Minister will know that when a number of competing insurance undertakings enter into an agreement under which they will provide cover only through an agreed mechanism, and when this mechanism enables them to defend uniformly higher premiums in such a way as to minimise risk to themselves and to decrease cover for the insured, that arrangement may fall within the scope of article 85.
  It can be argued that the Government have laid down what premiums Pool Reinsurance should collect from the insurers. Once the premiums have been set, however, companies may be minimising the risk to themselves and that may give rise to matters that the DTI will have to
  980
  work out with the Commission. My view is that, as the reinsurance cover is not available at the moment, this measure acts to increase cover. There are thus difficulties ahead for the Government with the European Commission. As Harry Truman said, perhaps the buck stops here, with the DTI. In this case, I prefer the words of Dean Inge, who once said that, although he had had a great many problems, most of them had never happened. I hope that the same will apply to article 85.
  I am convinced that the Commission will not want to intervene to prevent the Bill from being fully operative or to prevent the gap in the reinsurance market from being closed. There is another difficulty for the Government, who are setting the premiums for the insurance companies through Pool Reinsurance. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), who has left the Chamber, asked the Minister about that. [Interruption.] I am sorry. For those who read Hansard assiduously, let me make it clear that the hon. Gentleman is still in the Chamber. He asked the Minister about the impact of premiums. The danger for the Government would be if they set the premiums so high that the pool did not grow sufficiently to fulfil the purpose for which it was created. However, if the Government set premiums high, that would encourage competition from other reinsurers and bring them back into the market place.
  Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was retrospective to 1 January. That is my understanding, but I can see no reference anywhere in the Bill to 1 January, or indeed to any commencement date. In those circumstances, my understanding is that the Bill commences when it receives Royal Assent and not before.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention. However, all the guidelines that I have received from the Department of Trade and Industry say that the Government's intention is that the Bill, when enacted, should be retrospective to 1 January. That will cover the niche in the market place caused when the reinsurers withdrew their cover at the end of last year. That is my understanding and I hope that the Minister will confirm it.
  As far as I can tell from the Bill, the Minister has eschewed a policy of a compulsory levy on companies in designated areas. Having listened to the Minister with care, I would subscribe to that view. It is a matter for those involved to take out insurance as and when they wish, and how they wish. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) is in the Chamber. No doubt he will elaborate on that from the point of view of his constituents if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is right and proper that the Government should not, through their ultimate reinsurance cover, pick up the tab for looting, about which we have read a great deal in the newspapers. The Labour party has always believed, and still believes, in value for money. We have no intention of disbursing taxpayers' money gratuitously or abundantly in such a situation. What is remarkable is the number of people who come forward with a claim on insurance, and certainly on Government insurance, if they feel that they can. However, compensation for looting should be covered by general insurance policies. I am sure that, if those involved were to make a proper claim to their insurance companies, they would find that that was the case.

  981
  The Bill covers both damaged property and consequential losses arising from the interruption of business, so is not limited simply to the former. I agree with the Government on the point raised in the other place on 15 February this year, through a written question at column 62. The question was whether that cover would include premises closed as a result of the threat of terrorism.
  Mr. John Bowis: I seek clarification—perhaps from the hon. Gentleman, perhaps from the Minister—about compensation for looting. Looting is a risk that is not due to terrorism. If the building were left open, a claim for compensation for looting might be subject to question. If it were left open as a result of terrorist action, might not terrorist action be joined to the insurer's defence when resisting any such claim? There may be more complications here than meet the eye.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I had anticipated that point. One of the great things about speaking from the Dispatch Box is that one can sometimes anticipate interventions. The answer is that, in law, the claim would lie against the security firm rather than the insurance company. Victims of looting can make claims, but compensation does not necessarily lie through the route of the insurance policy.
  I agree with the Government's view about the vacating of premises under threat, as expressed in the other place. They are also right to have the insured deal only with the insurers and to keep themselves at arm's length. That is sensible.
  The scheme has the merit of keeping the Government's commitment to the minimum required by reinsurance. It places the burdens upon the insurance companies, when working out policies for commercial and industrial companies, and enables them to add on to the premium cover specific loss arising out of terrorist action. The Minister was right to say that that has been part of general insurance policies in the past. It will now be an add-on —to use a computing term—and provide for an additional 10 per cent. from insurance companies that are members of Pool Re and also for the realisation of investment income before there is a charge on the Exchequer.
  The balance of the scheme is such that it should encourage other reinsurers to come into the field. It permits the insurance world to show the flexibility that is required in a fast-moving world with a fast-moving insurance market. It also gives the insurance world an opportunity to assist those in the community. One of the themes that the Opposition are developing is the role of insurance companies within the framework of the community. Rather than withdrawing from the community by withdrawing cover for such claims, the insurance world will come back into the community, with the Government as last-resort insurers. That means that business will be as usual in the complex world in which we live.
  I would not wish to bore the House too much with technical detail, but I noticed the convoluted manner in which the total premium to be paid to the Government as the reinsurer of last resort will be calculated. It is a relief that the Government would not normally be entitled to require Pool Re to make premium payments unless the surplus in Pool Re exceeds £1,000 million, and that the
  982
  sum paid at any time will be limited so that the surplus remaining in the fund will not be reduced to below £1,000 million.
  I have seen a number of pessimistic forecasts in the press as to how much premium income the pool is likely to attract, but I am confident that the framework and the guidelines of the scheme will rectify a weakness that has developed in the reinsurance market, caused, as I have said, by a shortfall in capacity. This modest Bill involves the Treasury in modest terms and will show our determination that it will be business as usual for the City of London, as it will be elsewhere.
  I shall end my remarks where I began. The Minister said that there is an infinitesimal likelihood that terrorist attacks will succeed. The Opposition say that there is a non-existent prospect that they will succeed. The message we give to the terrorists is the message with which we began—death and destruction may follow from their actions, but political decisions will not.
  6.8 pm
  Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), and to support what he has said. It is a particular pleasure that the House should be attended by hon. Members from all the component parts of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. It is also a pleasure that the House is in whole-hearted agreement on the necessity for the measure, for the reasons given so eloquently by the hon. Gentleman.
  The Bill is, in one sense, interventionist, but it comes from a Government who are pragmatic in the way that they administer the governance of the United Kingdom. The principal reason for the Bill is to underline our determination that illegal acts of terrorism shall not be the means by which political changes occur. It is important that the House is united in that endeavour, since that will lead inevitably to the defeat of terrorism in the United Kingdom.
  I am also glad to welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister and to comment upon some of its aspects. First, however, I shall refer to the report of the commissioner of police for the City of London, published a few days ago, which makes it clear that, despite the incidence of terrorist attacks in the City—St. Mary Axe in 1992 and, sadly, more recently the Bishopsgate bomb—the fact of the matter is that the City of London police force has achieved what few police forces in the United Kingdom have so far achieved, in that its overall recorded crime figures show a decrease of 10·6 per cent., which, as the report says,
  "is very much against the national trend and a greater decrease than any other Force in the country, many of which are in fact showing an increase."
  The report says that the City of London, despite those isolated and horrific bomb incidents,
  "is still a relatively safe and civilised area in which to live, visit or do business. It is important to keep that perspective as, given the hundreds of thousands of people who frequent the City daily, the statistical chance of being harmed by criminal or terrorist activity is still extremely low."
  We should bear that point in mind.
  I take this opportunity to commend the City of London police, a small but special police force that has rendered exceptional service under difficult circumstances and has built up a remarkable expertise in dealing with the problem of terrorism. For example, although the St. Mary Axe

  983
  bomb blew the bomb car to smithereens, the City of London police scene of crime officers managed to scour through every fragment to discover sufficient evidence to identify the vehicle, which in turn led them to a suspect, and an arrest and charge have been made. Terrorism can be defeated, and one of the purposes of the Bill is to emphasise our support for the police service in that determination.
  During the recent outrages, both in 1992 and this year, the citizens of the City of London, in common with the whole country, I believe, have greatly admired the leadership of both the previous and the present lord mayors of the City of London, and the determination of the corporation as a whole to rally and organise the commercial community so that the people who commit terrorist outrages do not succeed in their primary endeavour.
  The proposals before us are necessary and welcome. I know that the Association of British Insurers was greatly concerned about the difficulties that it faced, to which my hon. Friend the Minister rightly referred. The mechanism that we propose to put in place will be both fair to the taxpayer and reasonable in its objective.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for the way in which he has responded to my concerns on behalf of my constituents in the city of Westminster who live in expensive blocks of flats which, as the Minister has explained, would have been treated as commercial properties, on which there would have been an especially high premium to pay. Many elderly people and people on lower than average incomes would have found the additional premiums hard to bear, and it was important that they should not become the victims of terrorist outrages by virtue of a substantial increase in their insurance premiums.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his practical and sensible response to that problem. As my hon. Friend the Minister has explained, for many people living in blocks of flats in my constituency, the additional premium, on a flat rate basis, may be no more than about £14. That is indeed bearable and, on behalf of my constituents, I am glad to thank the Government.
  As for the commencement of the Bill, it is right on this exceptional occasion that the House should depart from its regular objection to retrospective legislation and ensure that the measure be made effective from 1 January this year. We breach no precedent in doing that; this is an exceptional measure to deal with a particular situation, and it is right that we should allow an element of retrospective legislation.
  The Prime Minister responded to a question that I asked him after the Bishopsgate bomb by saying that the House would have such a measure before it at the earliest opportunity. My right hon. Friend has honoured that pledge in bringing the Bill before the House, and it is a matter for great satisfaction to us all that both sides of the House should be united in the endeavour to take the Bill speedily on to the statute book in the interests of defeating terrorism and supporting the British people.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am certainly glad to add my voice and that of the Liberal Democrats to welcome the proposals, especially as they end a degree of uncertainty that needed to be resolved in a constructive fashion. As a Member who represents a Scottish constituency and who believes that the United Kingdom needs some fundamental political changes, I must also say that such changes must be brought about by the democratic process.
  There is no doubt that such a measure was essential, because there was a danger that the terrorists might have been given another target, in the sense of being able not only to maim and injure people but to seek to bring down corporations, too, and thus to create more economic disruption than the mere disruption of offices that results from the damage that they inflict.
  The Government were right to seek a balance. We could not have witnessed too prolonged an exchange in which the Government were saying, fundamentally, that it was the responsibility of the insurance industry to take the risks, and the insurance industry was saying that it would withdraw altogether from that risk area. That gap could not have been allowed to continue for long, and we welcome the fact that the Government have understood that, and have introduced a scheme that seeks, in a sense, to go back into partnership with the industry and to ensure that the industry and the ultimate buyer of insurance make their contribution in terms that appear fair, balanced and reasonable.
  There are people far better equipped than Ito rake over the details and raise concerns and anomalies. The Minister said that the measure had been carefully thought through, but that the Government were willing to consider any representations that might be made. In view of the spirit in which the Bill has been introduced, I am sure that any such representations will be welcomed and accepted constructively.
  There is justice in what the Government are trying to do. I cannot calculate exactly whether they have got the balance completely right, but the thrust is certainly right. Making the Government the insurer, or reinsurer, of last resort is the right approach, rather than providing blank-cheque compensation. The Minister made it clear that the virtue of that approach was that it retained the inherent merits of continuing to operate a proper insurance scheme that will probably function on normal commercial lines, with the consequent speed of response. Clearly that was necessary, and one hopes that it will eliminate wrangling.
  I welcome the fact that the Minister made it clear that, while the objective of the Government's scheme is ultimately to achieve no cost, the guarantee is absolute, and the objective of no cost will not lead to any possibility of their failing to honour their reinsurance obligations. That is absolutely crucial, because the Government are the last resort, and if those obligations are not honoured there is nowhere else to turn.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) mentioned taxi drivers, and the Minister responded robustly and in a constructive way. Although the hon. Member will pursue his case, and I encourage him to do so and hope that he will secure a sympathetic response, it is very important that it is understood that, when this Bill becomes law, nobody is absolved of the obligation to make

  985
  the calculation of insuring or not. It must be made very clear to people that, while it is regrettable that the climate in which we live has increased the costs that we have to bear, that calculation must be made. One cannot be foolhardy and try to cut corners, consequently leaving oneself exposed.
  Nobody can be in any doubt that anybody who fails to take that necessary step will not be entitled to seek compensation from outside. It is important, and I am sure that the Government will make it clear, that that is fully understood as widely as possible.
  The different scheme in Northern Ireland may be interesting as a comparison, because it is troubles arising from Northern Ireland that have made this scheme necessary. It unites all Members in the commitment to ensure that neither by commercial nor by physically violent means can terrorism prevail. I believe that some practical common sense and ingenuity has been shown here, and that the insurance industry has responded.
  I spent a day at Lloyd's a few weeks ago, when I was made very well aware of the concern there about the fact that 3,000 people have effectively been ruined by that operation, and that many jobs will now be lost. It was made clear to me that, in addition to the large risks which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has already identified, the consequences of climatic change have had a serious effect upon Lloyd's, because it has led to a number of violent wind storms, for which Lloyd's was the reinsurer.
  It may well be that, in its heyday, Lloyd's could have taken up the risk with which the Government are now faced. However, in the circumstances in which it is now placed, it would be very foolhardy indeed to add that risk to those from which it is still trying to recover.
  I therefore welcome the fact that, after what might be described as initial spats—perhaps understandable and justifiable—between the Government and the insurance industry, the position taken by the Department of Trade and Industry in this Bill has prevailed, uncertainty and anxiety have been laid to rest, and a properly orchestrated scheme on a proper insurance basis will now be put in place to fill the gap from the day the insurance company withdrew the original cover.
  I hope that the Bill can make speedy progress and that it will be noted outside the House that it had total all-party, all-Member support.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I begin by declaring some interest as having been involved in insurance for 20 years, as an adviser to the Institute of Insurance Brokers and as an elected member of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council. Perhaps more important on this issue, although it is not an interest to declare, we have an all-party insurance financial services group, which I chair and which has been very active in discussing with the Government and the industry how to deal with this dreadful problem of terrorism cover.
  I pay a tribute to my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State and to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. They will know how difficult it has been for all of us, given the sensitivity of this issue, to discuss—I think that this will be taken in the right way—how to bring pressure to bear on the Government to recognise that something needed to be done. It was very late in
  986
  December before we finally reached agreement on how to proceed, but the reception that our approach received was not just extremely courteous, but very understanding. The fact that this Bill and the scheme that it underwrites so closely reflect the general principles that we put to my hon. Friend and his colleagues and officials at the DTI clearly indicates that they listened very carefully to the representations of the industry.
  I have said that I am a member of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council. Our office has been affected by both bombs. I was in Bishopsgate last week and I have seen the devastation caused by the second explosion. It left me with very mixed feelings. Above all, it strengthened my belief that, when we stand up in the House and say that terrorism will not prevail, that the bullet and bomb will not change the course of British politics or politics in Northern Ireland, it is not just because that has to be the way, but also because it is an absolute outrage that such acts should be perpetrated. I was moved by the way in which the people who work in the City, the police and the contractors putting right the damage carried on. They deserve the highest possible praise and support.
  We have all said, in the wake of these two outrages in the City of London and others elsewhere throughout the United Kingdom, that the terrorists will not win; life goes on. This measure is designed to ensure that life can go on, that businesses can be up and running as quickly as is humanly possible.
  In the discussion that we have had already, some concern has been expressed about whether the Bill as drafted can be retrospective to 1 January. I am in no doubt about that. As I understand it—perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm this in winding up—the Bill gives Parliament's approval to the Treasury paying out of public funds the money needed to underwrite Pool Re: in effect, to pay out money to support any agreement entered into by the President of the Board of Trade. He made that agreement at the end of last year, so what we are doing here is providing the funding for the agreement that he has already freely entered into.
  Again, I pay a tribute to the Government for the way in which they so quickly made clear after the recent outrage in Bishopsgate that moneys would be forthcoming and that there would be no difficulty with this scheme because we had not yet passed the Bill through Parliament.
  In his introductory speech, my hon. Friend talked about all those who consider themselves to be at risk and said that it was in their commercial interest to insure. I suggest that we should go further. I believe that we should discourage selection on the basis of whether people ought to have terrorist cover. It is a simplistic argument, but one does not say to one's insurance company that flood damage should be excluded because the house is on the top of a hill.
  The whole principle of insurance is one of mutual cover, mutual risk and mutual funding. What we have seen in the past year or so must tell us all that no one can be sure where terrorists will choose to strike. Yes, there are some potential targets—we all acknowledge that—but I feel strongly that it is the duty of the House to discourage selection. I take my hon. Friend the Minister's point that there should not be compulsion, but I think that we should encourage businesses to avail themselves of the Pool Re facility. The Minister gave a vivid example of the fact that,

  987
  in the full context of the overall picture of business costs, the costs of taking advantage of Pool Re in extra premium terms are very small.
  There are two principles that business men ought to acknowledge: first, that it can happen to them, and, secondly, that, if it does, it will not affect their ability or the resolve of their businesses to continue. That means that every business needs a strategy for management of the risk that terrorism represents. That strategy embraces three elements. First, it must mean increased vigilance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) rightly paid tribute to the work of the police in the City of London. Indeed, the police throughout London have done a tremendous job in the face of terrorist activities and we ought not to forget that many potential bomb threats have been intercepted with tremendous skill and with the use of intelligence. We need to get across the question of vigilance to the public and to the business community. I do not want to dwell on that point today because I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that everything that can be done will be done in that regard.
  Secondly, businesses must have an emergency plan. After the St. Mary Axe bomb, everybody was overwhelmed with admiration for the speed with which Commercial Union, the worst affected by the bomb, was able to respond. There has been no real impact on its business because it had an emergency plan ready to put into operation. Following that, many other businesses in the City of London did the same and those plans were put into effect speedily and with tremendous skill during the recent outrage in Bishopsgate. That is a lesson that businesses throughout the country need to take on board.
  Thirdly, the element in the strategy on which I place the greatest reliance is the need for insurance. The Bill makes that possible. It is largely an enabling Bill and there is much detail still to be thrashed out. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry is approaching the Bill in a constructive way. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister acknowledges that if there are still some issues to rehearse in detail—issues that might have been rehearsed during the Committee stage of a similar Bill—such rehearsal would not be appropriate tonight. There will be an opportunity to raise concerns directly with him and his officials will be available at a later stage.
  Will my hon. Friend think again about the need for a separate certificate of insurance for terrorism? I should have preferred us to deal with the issue in the following way. Everyone has made it clear that unless one takes advantage of the Pool Re facility or makes some other arrangement, one will not be insured. It is clear to the policyholder on the renewal documents, which have been sent out by insurance companies since the end of last year, that the £100,000 limit per item of claim is clear and that everything else is excluded. For that reason, we can perhaps avoid the need for a separate certificate of insurance for terrorism when people buy cover in future.
  I was also encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the need to contain bureaucracy and to make the scheme as simple as possible. There is a problem about the degree of information that has to be
  988
  provided to obtain quotations. However, I welcome the fact that the Department has agreed to review its requirements in that area.
  Commission is another relevant point. When we put the scheme together and asked the Government to be reinsurers of last resort, I argued strongly that there should not be a commission element on the extra payment into the pool. With hindsight, I think that that was a mistake. I believe that there should be some element of commission for two reasons. First, it is important that businesses take up the cover, so we need to have some incentive. Secondly, brokers may try to seek alternative markets for cover which pay commission and that would undermine the viability of the Pool Re scheme. I shall come to the point about alternatives in a moment. There is a significant work load in relation to the scheme itself and in relation to claims. I believe, therefore, that we should re-examine the commission argument.
  Other reinsurance schemes are being considered. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) raised the point about potential problems with the EC over competition policy. We have agreed that there should not be compulsion. No one suggests that every business man is being compelled to insure through the scheme. Alternatives will be provided—indeed, I understand that that is happening already. For that reason, I encourage everyone to take advantage of Pool Re.
  Over three to five years, there is no reason why the scheme should not be in equilibrium in terms of funding and there is no reason why the objective that we all sought to achieve at the beginning of the exercise—that there should be no ultimate cost to the taxpayer—should not be achieved.
  I give a warm welcome to the Bill. I again thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his work so far and for the work that he will continue to do on this important matter.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Bernie Grant: I, too, welcome the opportunity to raise matters pertaining to insurance in this debate. It is clear from the number of hon. Members who have remained to take part in the debate that the subject is serious, especially because the problems of Northern Ireland are now transferring to the mainland. Many people are extremely concerned about what is happening. I have no time for terrorism, as I have stated in the past. What is happening will cause severe grief unless serious action is taken to try to resolve the situation in Northern Ireland. However, I am here to speak not about the position in Northern Ireland, but about insurance claims.
  In the past year in my constituency and in my area, we have had several problems with terrorism. A bomb was left at White Hart Lane station in my constituency and a bomb went off in Wood Green shopping city in my area. Garages in Muswell Hill have been raided and explosives have been found. So the situation is serious and I for one am angry that the IRA should seek to use terrorist methods at all, but certainly not in working-class areas where the people are poor and must struggle to make a living. It is particularly in this regard that I wish to look at the question of insurance.
  I welcome the Bill and I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said. I was interested in his point about the Government's intervention in this specific area. I, too, am pleased that they are

  989
  intervening. It is not usual for this Government to intervene—they talk about market forces taking care of everything—yet here we see them directly intervening. I believe that one of the reasons for their intervention is their moral obligation to look after the security of everyone —big business, my constituents and everyone else. So they feel that they must do something to protect people's security.
  The Government must protect not only the interests and property of rich people in the City, but the interests and property of people in my area, working-class people. It is in this regard that I mention two of my constituents who were the minicab drivers involved in incidents on the same night as the NatWest tower and other buildings in the City were blown up.
  One of my constituents was approached by two men, one of whom held a gun to his head. The second man got into the seat beside him and they ordered him to drive towards various destinations. The driver of one of the minicabs told me that the person sitting next to him was priming the bomb, putting the wires together, setting the timer and so on, right next to him in the same vehicle. After they had been going some time, they placed the bomb, now live, underneath his seat and, with a gun to his head, told him to drive to 10 Downing street. They took away the wing mirrors and inside rear mirror and told him that they would be driving behind him and that if he tried to stop or leave the vehicle they would shoot him. Then they got out.
  My constituent then set off for Downing street, but after he had gone about 50 yards he stopped his cab, got out of it, hailed a bus driver who was passing and, with his help, contacted the police. He himself stood in the road, waved people down, told them that there was a bomb in the car and stopped other people being injured. After some time the police came, the place was cordoned off and the car blew up. Roughly the same thing happened to my second constituent whose car stopped somewhere in the King's Cross area.
  I mention these points because this was not just a case of people abandoning their cars and running for their lives. The two people concerned acted in a very public-spirited manner and saved not only their own lives but the lives of others in the vicinity. In doing so they were able to prevent any destruction of property as well as of lives.
  Since the incident my constituents have experienced a number of problems. First, they are unable to claim compensation. This is where we come to the question of the insurance. I understand that, for various reasons, these drivers took out a hire and reward insurance third party only, which means that if they have an accident and the other party suffers damage they are covered for that, but their own vehicles are not insured and they get no compensation from the insurance company for them.
  That is what concerns me because, while the Minister may say that they have the option of going for comprehensive insurance, which would have given them compensation, the fact is that when my constituents look out insurance they did not expect that the IRA would hold a gun to their heads, put bombs in their cars and blow them to bits. It is not, therefore, a normal, everyday risk, and that is my argument. They acted properly in getting third party insurance as required by law. They had no idea that they would be in this situation. It is not an everyday occurrence. It may be that in Northern Ireland, where such things happen fairly regularly, minicab drivers will accept
  990
  the possibility of being forced to take on board a terrorist bomb and will see the need to insure against it specifically. But here on the mainland it is not a regular occurrence, so we cannot expect drivers to take on such liabilities. Now that it has happened on at least three occasions, minicab drivers will be well advised in future to take out comprehensive insurance, but at the moment, because such things have seldom happened, they feel it unnecessary to take out the full insurance.
  On that basis, I appeal to the Minister to find some way of getting compensation for these drivers. They are self-employed people whose livelihood has been totally destroyed, and because they cannot claim compensation they cannot work.
  I asked the Library to give me some advice on compensation. I was told that if the drivers' cars had been burnt during a riot or looting or something like that, under the Riot Act they would have been compensated. If a person's car is set on fire by a bunch of football hooligans, for example, he can get compensation from the police, but if it is blown up by the IRA and set on fire he cannot claim compensation.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own point. The purpose of the Bill is not to provide compensation but merely to provide at a commercial premium rate an insurance service which otherwise would not be available. Similarly, in the case of damage to real property, in circumstances where an insured had not taken out an insurance policy covering it for the particular kind of damage which was suffered, the provisions of the Bill would not provide retrospectively compensation to pay for the damage suffered. So we are not treating the owners of commercial real property in any way differently from the owners of motor cars, as in the case that the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House this afternoon. We are seeking to plug a gap in the market, although the Bill will apply to contracts of insurance entered into as from 1 January. We are not bringing in a compensation scheme.
  Mr. Grant: I thank the Minister for that. I understand and support what the Bill is doing. What I am demonstrating to the Minister is that there is a loophole in insurance law generally. I do not say that an amendment could not be tabled—I do not know how things are done —but, although I support the Bill, I am suggesting that this is something else to be looked at. Not only have problems arisen about compensation and loss of livelihood, but the men concerned have been offered no protection. One suspected person has been identified and arrested and, at some stage, my constituents will be called on to give evidence against the people concerned, but no protection has been provided for them.
  Those men are totally traumatised, but have had no counselling. One of my constituents is a refugee from Ethiopia. He told me yesterday that he had run away from a traumatic situation there only to arrive in Britain and find himself in another traumatic situation. Perhaps it was because of his experience of dangerous situations in Ethiopia that he was able to act in a public-spirited manner and prevent a further tragedy.
  The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who spoke for the insurance groups, rightly talked about how brave the City workers were to go back to work and about the good work of the fire brigade and the police. I agree

  991
  with him, but my constituents have also had a very traumatic experience. No one has said that they are brave. No one has been to see them; the Prime Minister has not written to them to thank them for not delivering the bombs that they were ordered to deliver. When we give praise to people like the workers who turned up for work the next day, I hope that the people in high positions will also think about my constituents who also had a very traumatic experience.
  I hope that there are no more incidents, but, being pragmatic and the situation being what it is, I suspect that there might be. I would like the Government to consider whether there is a way in which my constituents, who have only third party insurance, can be helped. People in my constituency are working for £80 per week; they have to struggle to pay the insurance premium before they can go out and earn their living. I am not talking about people who have a lot of money and can afford to pay £2,000 for comprehensive insurance. One of the cars which was blown up was worth only £1,500, so paying £2,000 for comprehensive insurance is just not worth it. I would be very pleased if some arrangement could be made whereby the Government make an ex gratia payment in recognition of my constituents' actions.
  The owners of the minicab firm—Alan's Minicab Services—have set up a trust fund for the people concerned because they, other minicab drivers and the local people feel that something should be done for them. I hope that the Government can find a way in which to ensure that people who are caught, by poverty, with third party insurance obtain some compensation or relief from the problems that they have been forced into facing.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: I am sure that the whole House will have considerable sympathy for the two constituents of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), both of whom acted in a completely publicly spirited manner.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the Bill. Towards the end of last year they responded very quickly to the situation that arose, when it became clear that there would be no possibility of reinsurance in the market. I know that the way in which they responded to events in the market has been widely welcomed by insurance companies and insurance brokers. I am an adviser to the British Investment and Insurance Brokers Association and I can tell the House that it, too, welcomes the Bill.
  We are all very conscious of the background against which the Bill is introduced. I reiterate what every hon. Member has already said—that a measure of this kind is essential if we are to demonstrate to the IRA our determination that they will not win under any circumstances.
  I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister one or two questions about the Bill. In some respects, the Bill could be described, I think he might agree, as a bit of a blank cheque. It does not have a date on it and I would like a date to be inserted, even if the agreement has the date 1 January 1993, which I understand to be the case.
  992
  When my hon. Friend responds to the debate, will he give some information about how he will report on financial progress? If we give the Government a blank cheque in this respect, we will need regular information about how the scheme is progressing. My hon. Friend described the Bill as a market solution. I welcome the fact that it is as near to a market solution as we can achieve, given that it involves Government intervention, as has been recognised. I believe that Government intervention is justified where there is market failure, as in this case, and I commend my hon. Friend's scheme. I take my hon. Friend's point that, in the long run, there will be no cost to the taxpayer. That is what we hope and believe.
  It is just not the case that it is a market solution, with low costs and, in the end, no cost to the taxpayer. There may be considerable costs to the taxpayer in the interim period because of cash flow disadvantages. The Government may sometimes have to pay out large sums of money and be unable to recover them until some subsequent, unspecified time.
  For that reason, it would be helpful if we could hear a little more about the arrangements for reporting on what happens to Pool Re, which is a company limited by guarantee, as my hon. Friend the Minister explained. Presumably, like any other limited liability company, it will, in due course, file accounts at Companies House. We will then be able to judge the position of the company, some months after the end of its financial year. Does my hon. Friend have other proposals in mind for reporting on how things go?
  Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us how things have gone so far, because we are now in month five of the new arrangement. It would be helpful to know about the extent to which, to date, people have participated in the new arrangement and the amounts of premiums that have been paid into the company. It would also be helpful to know whether my hon. Friend believes that it may be necessary to pay any claims arising from the Bishopsgate bomb.
  Those factors are important when one reads the financial memorandum, which states—I understand why it could say nothing else—that "no precise estimate is possible" of the cost to the Government of the arrangements envisaged. Although my hon. Friend has said that the costs to the taxpayer will be low and that, in the end, the taxpayer will not lose out, I should like to hear about the arrangements for reporting on progress.
  I reaffirm my support for the Bill, which has the universal support of the House. In the circumstances, the Bill is essential and I wish my hon. Friend every success in implementing it.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: In common with every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate, I support the Bill. Although it is not the right measure to deal with the issue, I accept that it is necessary that something should be done. The Bill and the scheme that it underwrites at least have the merit of being put into operation speedily. In an ideal world, however, I would suggest that the Government should adopt a different scheme.
  The event that finally galvanised the Government into acting on the problem was the bombing last year of the Baltic Exchange. The subsequent events were not surprising, but at the time of the bomb, what struck those

  993
  of us who represent Northern Ireland were the incredible estimates of loss that were produced. People immediately produced estimates of £700 million and more. At that time last year the total bill for all the bombing incidents in Northern Ireland over 20 years, in terms of criminal damage payments, was significantly less than that. I do not have the precise figures with me, but I think £400 million to £500 million would be on the high side. Yet so-called insurance experts produced such incredible figures.
  As Mr. McKittrick, The Independent correspondent, rightly said recently in a newspaper article, after the Baltic Exchange bomb the Republican leadership was "surprised and delighted" at what was said—surprised because, evidently, it did not expect the bill for damage to be so high, and delighted at the panic-stricken reaction. It was inevitable, in the light of that, that there would be more bombs in London. It is further inevitable following the reaction after Bishopsgate, for we saw the same degree of exaggeration. That applied to reaction in terms of estimates, with people talking straightaway about a bill of £1 billion, and making exaggerated comments about the scale of the damage.
  I wish London journalists would learn to tell the difference between structural and superficial damage. There was serious structural damage to the church outside which the bomb was placed, but it was obvious to anybody looking at the huge photographs in the newspapers, which occupied far too much space, that the damage to the office blocks was entirely superficial. I was in London on that Saturday morning. I was travelling to Liverpool street station when the bomb went off. Lest people are curious about that, I should perhaps explain that I was travelling for the entirely innocent purpose of going to Essex for an Orange parade. The following day I was in Belfast and had a chance to catch up with the papers and look at the photographs. It was clear to me and my colleagues there that the damage was superficial.
  I wish that people would be more restrained in that respect. They should also accept that businesses must learn from the regrettable experience of their counterparts in Northern Ireland, who have had to deal with the situation for far too long. It is possible to have contingency plans. Businesses should gear the way in which they operate to enable them to get back into operation quickly. Regrettably, we in Northern Ireland have had to get back to business quickly. It can be done. It is not the end of the world. Indeed, that is one way in which the man in the street and the ordinary business man can do his bit to beat terrorism. He can demonstrate that it is possible to get back to business quickly and without any undue fuss.

  Although there have been two major bombs, Bishopsgate and the Baltic Exchange, the point must be made—this is why I said that we are debating a belated measure—that the danger of major incidents such as those has existed for a long time. That danger still exists and it is greater than people in England realise. For some time, the Provisional IRA has probably—I say "probably" because I cannot be precise—been putting greater resources into its bombing campaign in England than into its entire terrorist operation in Northern Ireland. By greater resources, I mean the commitment of skilled manpower, money and the rest.
  Over the years, the IRA has built up an infrastructure in England which enables it to conduct a sustained campaign. Last year, more than 20 tonnes of home-made explosives were recovered in London alone—and every
  994
  last ounce of that was probably manufactured in London. I asked the Home Secretary a question about that in the middle of last year, and although he did not disagree with the estimate he did not do what he should have done and make the public aware of the position. Manufacturing home-made explosive takes time and a large number of people. If the public are properly alerted about what to look out for, it should be possible for them to play their part in suppressing the campaign, but they must be told how to be vigilant and how to assist the authorities. It does no good in the current situation to pretend that there is not a problem and thus fail to involve the public fully in the fight against terrorism. A tremendous resource is available in terms of potential public support, but it is not being fully utilised.
  The Minister referred to comparable arrangements in Northern Ireland and said that legislation had existed both in Northern Ireland and in Ireland to deal with costs arising out of this kind of situation, and he is right—it has existed for not far short of 300 years. I should welcome the opportunity to dilate on some of the advantages of that 18th century legislation, which contains some interesting features. Any hon. Member who wishes to discuss the matter with me is welcome to do so after the debate.
  The Bill applies to Great Britain and its provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland. May I be assured that in no circumstances will the provisions be extended to Northern Ireland, that the existing Northern Ireland legislation will remain substantially in place and that the cover and provisions for compensation will not be diminished by any temptation to extend provisions of this type to Northern Ireland? I want that assurance because I consider the provisions in the Bill to be inadequate. They are not good enough, and they are certainly not so good as the statutory provisions in Northern Ireland. I should hate to see the Northern Ireland position undermined as a result of the introduction of measures such as these. We in Northern Ireland do not want to be driven back into taking a market-based approach, particularly in view of the record of some English financial institutions in regard to the problems of Belfast over the years. Apart from that, I am referring to a matter of general principle.
  Hon. Members may have gathered that I regard the provisions in Northern Ireland as better than those in the Bill. They are better because the statutory provisions in Northern Ireland are comprehensive. This reinsurance arrangement will not be comprehensive. Under the existing provisions in Northern Ireland, wherever property is damaged as the result of violence or terrorist activity there is provision for compensation. Under the reinsurance arrangement before the House, compensation insurance will be available only to people who first take out insurance to cover the terrorist risk.
  I made that point in an intervention in the speech of the Minister, and it was made by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) when he referred to people who lost out in the incident of which he spoke. He paid tribute to those people, and I underwrite that tribute. They behaved in a highly responsible and brave way, but even if they had not behaved so bravely I should have thought that they would still have a good claim on the public purse for compensation. And it is not just taxi drivers—the same could happen to anyone. Any driver could find his or her car being hijacked and used for a similar purpose. Must every person who owns a car in Britain stop and think about the risk? The Minister said that people who felt

  995
  themselves to be at risk should take out additional insurance. How can the man in the street or the ordinary business man assess the risk that he may be facing?
  It is wrong to think that the risk exists only in the City of London. We know how adept the Provisional IRA is at switching from one area to another. As soon as it is anticipated that the IRA will do one thing, it switches and does the unexpected. That is the way terrorist organisations operate—the risk could be anywhere. We have reason to suspect that there is a significant terrorist infrastructure in London. There is also reason to suspect that there is a significant terrorist infrastructure in the north-west of England. There may be others elsewhere. We do not know what structures have been set up. We do not know what sleepers there are elsewhere. The risk is not confined to certain geographic locations or to certain categories of persons. The risk is more general.
  It is inadequate to say to the public, "You should take action only if you feel yourselves at risk." The reason why legislation was originally introduced for Ireland in the 18th century, which was not a period of Government interventionism, was that it was recognised—correctly—that there is a particular responsibility upon Governments to maintain public order. That is one of the primary purposes of Government. What we are dealing with here are the risks and the damage which affect people as a result of a failure to maintain public order. That is why there is compensation for riot damage, and that is why there ought also to be compensation for damage caused by terrorists.
  The primary advantage of the legislation in Northern Ireland is that it is comprehensive. Another of its advantages is that there is a degree of governmental control. Because the compensation scheme is administered by the Government, they have a measure of control over its operation. After major terrorist incidents, one serious danger is that there will be fraudulent claims. What measures will be taken, in terms of the Pool Reinsurance agreements, to cover that? Will the Government just rely upon the insurance companies to detect fraud? Will the insurance companies have an economic interest in detecting fraud, or will they be tempted to pass on the risk to the insurer of last resort, the Government?
  Under the criminal damage legislation, there is a statutory framework within which one can determine the extent of consequential loss. What will be the position under these arrangements? Will the extent of cover for consequential loss differ from one insurance company to another, with the Government merely picking up the tab through the pool, or will policies contain standard terms to ensure equal cover?

  What will happen about betterment? That is a significant problem. When there is damage of this nature, the person whose property is destroyed gets new for old when he rebuilds, and in some respects is better off. One suspects that some businesses in Northern Ireland have prospered because of the number of times that they have been blown up. I am thinking of hotel businesses. The result is that now they have much bigger and better hotels than they ever had to begin with. An ironic consequence of the campaign is this question of betterment. What provision will be made by insurance policies to deal with it? There may be other factors, too.
  996
  I will say no more about the Northern Ireland legislation. I merely say that I believe that the Northern Ireland scheme is superior to this one. It may have been thought necessary to introduce this legislation because it is speedy and setting up a proper compensation scheme would take longer, but the best thing to do in the long run is to have a proper compensation scheme.
  This last-minute measure, which the Minister says is temporary, smacks to some extent of the Government's whole approach to the problem of terrorism—a little half-hearted and a little too late. The Government are not committed to dealing with the problem. I detected that approach in the Minister's final comments. He referred to the underlying problem and said that terrorism would not succeed because the IRA had failed to move the Government an inch. That ought to be the position—I wish to God it were—but everyone knows that it is not.
  Terrorist operations have moved the Government quite a considerable distance in terms of compromising the integrity of the United Kingdom, in terms of eliminating the democratic process in Northern Ireland, in terms of giving the parties which share the objectives of terrorism a say in the government of Northern Ireland, and sometimes in terms of appearing, as the Government did in the recent talks, to be neutral about the Union. The way to defeat terrorism is to be positive about the Union and to demonstrate clearly that the Government oppose not just the means that the terrorists adopt but also their objectives.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The House has listened with keen interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Having served as a Northern Ireland Minister, I understand the points that he made. I agree with him completely that Great Britain has a great deal to learn from Northern Ireland in terms of its response to terrorist incidents and in terms of showing its determination not to be overwhelmed by terrorist pressure.

  The fact that sometimes the media get over-excited may lead to a misinterpretation of the public's attitude to terrorism. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) spoke movingly on behalf of his constituents. He showed in his graphic speech, to which we listened with keen interest, just how widespread the damage done by terrorism can be and how completely universal is the revulsion against terrorism.
  To follow up one point that was made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, it is not for me to answer on behalf of the Government, but the hon. Gentleman said that there is a significant difference between the Northern Ireland and Great Britain schemes. He praised the benefits of the Northern Ireland scheme and asked what would happen about betterment in the Great Britain scheme.
  As I understand it, the scheme for Great Britain which we are now discussing walks around that problem. The initiative for sorting out the problem will remain with insurance companies. The Government will merely stand behind them and prevent insurance schemes from being blown aside by the present lack of reinsurance. The detailed problem relating to betterment will not arise under the Great Britain scheme, because control over that matter will remain with the insurance companies.

  997
  I asked the Minister to spell out the difference between the proposed scheme for Great Britain and the scheme that operates in Northern Ireland. I thought it appropriate that it should be on the record that there is a difference between the two schemes; I thought it appropriate, too, that the Government's explanation of why there should be a different scheme for Great Britain should be on the record. When I asked that question, I was not seeking to suggest that the Great Britain scheme should be comparable to the Northern Ireland scheme. The two situations are different. Therefore, I warmly welcome the scheme that the Minister has laid before the House today. I believe it to be the right scheme for Great Britain.
  I declare an interest, to which I referred during my intervention. I am an elected member of the council of Lloyd's of London, and since 1973 I have been an underwriting member of Lloyd's. I declare that interest in much the same way as a house owner might declare an interest when the value of his mortgage exceeds the value of his house. It is a negative interest this year. Nevertheless, I declare my interest in Lloyd's with pride, for it has been the focal point of insurance in the United Kingdom for the past 300 years. It is a crucial part of the success of the City of London in making London the centre of the insurance market.
  Lloyd's leads in most major insurance risks and is now fighting valiantly, in my view, to put its house in order so as to win back the confidence that has certainly been prejudiced and lost as a result of the terrible losses of recent years. I am confident that Lloyd's will fight its way back. In parentheses, may I say that Lloyd's very much appreciates the interest and the understanding of its situation that has been shown by the Minister and the staff of the Department of Trade and Industry. Having said that, however, I must point out that I do not in any sense speak on behalf of Lloyd's. My speech is entirely on my own account.
  It was necessary that a scheme such as this should be brought before the House. Late in 1992, it became apparent that the reinsurance interests—the big continental and American reinsurance companies and groups, through which much of the insurance of the City of London and other parts of the United Kingdom is frequently placed—had been destabilised and that they were not confident about continuing their reinsurance arrangements. The result was that the insurance market was destabilised. Therefore, it became necessary to introduce a stabilising element.
  I believe that I was the first to raise this issue on the Floor of the House, late in 1992. I did so with diffidence, because I was sad to think that a stabilisation measure should be necessary. Nevertheless, it was necessary. Industrial interests made this very clear to the Government. The insurance industry was not making the point that it required support or subsidy; it was spelling out in clear terms the fact that insurance would not be available if reinsurance were not available and that if insurance in the City of London were not available it might be impossible for companies to continue to operate there. Thus the position of the City as a world capital market might be under threat.
  There is no question of insurance interests seeking support subsidy in that sense. What they need is stability. In urging the Government to act, they were not speaking on their own behalf. It is quite clear that they were pushing at a door that was ready to open. The Government were
  998
  looking carefully at the whole issue and Ministers were quick to come forward with an appropriate measure. I repeat that there is no question of this Bill's representing a subsidy for the insurance industry. The medium-term intention is that it should be a stabilising measure and that it should be neutral in terms of Government cost. I suspect that in the short term there will be an element of subsidy. A number of matters will have to be explored very carefully in Committee. These days, every Bill states whether there will be an additional demand by way of public-sector manpower. I see that in this case two additional posts in the Department of Trade and Industry will be required. I am afraid that the two people appointed will have to work extremely hard in the next year or two.
  Of all industries, the insurance industry is international and is responsive to market forces. I have already referred to the fact that, although London is the centre of the insurance world, it uses extensive overseas reinsurance facilities. As the industry is so international and so responsive to market forces, premiums will respond quickly to perceived risk. I believe that the situation will stabilise rapidly, thanks to the measures that are being taken.
  I welcome the Bill. It will stabilise the industry and, in due course, enable the Government to withdraw. As I have said already, many points will have to be raised in Committee. I am sure that hon. Members look forward to making their points at that stage. In the meantime, I thank the Government for introducing the measure, which I thoroughly welcome.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) referred to the memorandum on the financial effects of the Bill. I should like to quote part of the explanation:
  "The costs to the Government of the arrangements envisaged will depend on the level of terrorist damage suffered by properties covered by the arrangement, and therefore no precise estimate is possible."
  That arises from the peculiar circumstances of the measure, and I do not want to argue against it in any way. Essentially, what we are dealing with is an IRA bombing campaign in this country. However, the Bill is general and will apply to any type of terrorist activity. Clause 2(2), in defining an act of terrorism, does not refer simply to acts intended to overthrow Her Majesty's Government or to influence them by force or violence. Other Governments are included. I am thinking of the embassies of other countries, whether the Governments of those countries are de jure or de facto. Presumably, if an attack were made on the mission of Eritrea—a country that has not yet been formally recognised but is likely to be recognised on 24 May—it could be dealt with as would be an attack on a subsequent embassy. We are dealing with a general legal situation, although it has its origins in IRA activity.
  Businesses can take certain action to contain the cost and lessen the impact of terrorism. In this regard, they ought to direct their attention to the moral, political and financial support that can be given to organisations—many of them in Northern Ireland—that try bravely to face up to terrorist activity, whether of the IRA or of Protestant paramilitary organisations such as the UDA. It should be recognised that there are people who seek to undermine bodies such as the IRA and to remove the

  999
  conditions in which they can develop. This is a matter to which commercial interests would do well to pay some attention.
  The Peace Train organisation was formed as a result of the disruption of rail services, especially between Dublin and Belfast. The purpose of disruption is to have traffic moved from the railway to other types of transport that are susceptible to rackets. In addition, the British troops who have to clear railway lines that have been tampered with are vulnerable. Although there has recently been some similar IRA activity, the Peace Train organisation has been quite successful. Following deaths at railway stations and explosions on railway lines in this country, the Peace Train people organised a run from Belfast, through Dublin, Dun Laoghaire and Holyhead to Euston. People from 17 political parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic and Britain were involved, and the President of the Republic, Mary Robinson, gave her support.
  It is important that businesses should support such activities. Obviously, many people who have no party political connections are involved. I refer in particular to a group called Families Against Intimidation and Terror. In Northern Ireland, the IRA and the UDA try to operate no-go areas in which they take charge of law and order. When there is lawlessness in an area, such people try to move in and take over from the proper authorities. Knee-capping is one manifestation. The IRA shoots up Catholics, and Protestant paramilitary organisations shoot up Protestants.
  It is good to have an organisation in which Protestants and Catholics unite against such activities. A very impressive meeting, involving three Protestants and two Catholics from Ireland, took place in this building. The common experience of those people obviously affects businesses in Northern Ireland. These are moves with which we ought to be associated. There are many community organisations and bodies such as the Irish Association, Co-operation North, Glencree, Women Together, Lurgan Interfriendship, the Peace People—and Peace '93 which emerged after the Warrington bombing and held a massive rally in Dublin. Business needs to be aware of those organisations because they could have an impact on how the legislation operates.
  I am associated with one such group, New Consensus, which operates in Ireland and in Northern Ireland; there is also a group in Britain. I am privileged to be one of its presidents, together with the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and Lord Hylton, who is a CrossBencher. I hope that that shows what needs to happen here and in Northern Ireland on a cross-party, cross-community basis. The people whose names appear on the letterhead of that organisation are from different parties, as are the vice-presidents—my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox). Not only do the presidents and vice-presidents represent different parties but my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles and I represent different wings of the same party. Such activity should be encouraged—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks should relate to the Bill.
  Mr. Barnes: I am grateful that you have been so generous, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the points that I have made so far. I think that they were relevant to the measure because of the expenditure that the Government may be involved in due to acts of terrorism. What is needed is action that begins to undermine the development and the growth of terrorism. There are things which business can do to assist that. That was the logic of the points that I was making.
  The debate has been fascinating. Quite often, hon. Members make similar speeches and have party briefs to speak to. Usually, different parties argue different positions. So far, the contributions to the debate have represented different interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) made a telling contribution. If we were debating the politics of Northern Ireland, hon. Members might have different views on the way forward and on how to undermine the activities of terrorists, but hon. Members are united on the Bill.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I wish first to make two apologies and to pay one tribute. My first apology is to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for missing his speech. I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister, but I had to leave the Chamber to pay a tribute to Robert Adley and did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.
  My second apology is not to anyone in the House. When one of my constituents, Stephen Lawrence, was murdered recently, I would have liked to have had the chance to raise in the House the unprovoked racial attack which resulted in the murder of a fine young man who was black. There may be another occasion when I can do that, but I wish to say to his family that issues relating to terrorism are no more important than the incident which caused them such suffering.
  My tribute is to my hon. Friend the Minister. There has been a general welcome for the Bill, in which I join. I also pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend introduced it. He did not give way to the temptations which were obviously present. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was right that avoiding exaggerated reaction to the aims of terrorists helps reduce what they achieve.
  People who set off bombs and who carry out assassinations, whether they have picked out targets or are casual about whom they kill, seek publicity and public reaction. That public reaction may include what insurers feel that they may or may not be able to afford to provide cover for. The public reaction may include what the Government decide that they should properly do. Certainly, it includes what the Provisional IRA was trying to achieve in the mid-1970s and failed to do in the mid-1990s, which was to drive a wedge between the Irish and British communities.
  It is becoming ever clearer that there is no wedge between the Irish and the British. The Warrington bomb helped to focus attention on a development over the past 10 years: that more and more Irish people are saying openly, "This is not done in our name." That is a very important thing for the Irish to say. It is important for those of us who are in part Irish, or in large part not Irish, to be able to stand with the people in the Irish community

  1001
  in Dublin, Belfast and London and say that we understand what the terrorists, the bombers and the killers are trying to achieve.
  The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) made an impressive speech. His points could not properly be answered by one Minister. The Minister who will reply to the debate can only say that some of those points do not concern the departmental interest which he covers.
  I do not believe that the Bill should be amended to cover the point, but when we think of all the interests involved—the insurance interest, the City interest arid the national interest—if we cannot enable the two heroic minicab drivers to carry on with their trade, by providing insurance cover and vehicles, we are not the sort of country that I believe we are.
  Perhaps someone in the City of London corporation could find out whether, by passing round a hat or by applying to an existing fund, the minicab drivers could be put at least in the position that they were in before they were commissioned to take bombs to Downing street and elsewhere. When awards are being made for valour or gallantry, I think that most people would regard it as appropriate that they should receive such public recognition.
  As to the points made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), it is important to reduce the costs of insurance, reinsurance and guarantees to Pool Reinsurance. There are different ways of doing that. Some, which are for another debate, are hard security measures. We do not want to turn the City of London, the city of Westminster or any other part of the United Kingdom into a no-go area because that is not what a free and open society is about. Part of the solution is to continue showing in various ways that the terrorists—this applies to disloyalists just as much as to the Provisional IRA—are not achieving what they are after. If we can understand some of the underlying grievances, and say so out loud, they will be less able to exploit them in recruiting people to their illegal criminal substitute for politics.
  We must also recognise that bombs are set off and people are murdered to get publicity and public reaction. We must turn that against the terrorists. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East made a passing reference to the Peace Train. When I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, I was responsible for railways. I leave with the House one experience. On most days, the rail service was interrupted by bombs, hoax bombs, calls and hoax calls. The IRA was trying to get the same publicity as that which followed a tragic level-crossing crash at Slaght outside Ballymena, which was not terrorist-related. The IRA knew that it was not possible, either in the City of London or on a railway line in Northern Ireland, for the security forces and the railways to be able to react almost perfectly to every incident. Therefore, it tried to cause the sorts of deaths and crashes that we saw outside Ballymena. For six weeks after that, there was no interruption to the railway service.
  It is possible to turn the publicity and public reaction against the IRA. I hope that one memorial to Edward Henty will be a newspaper drive for understanding of what people want when they have the sort of explosions with which the Bill is partly designed to cope.
  Without straying too far from the Bill, it is worth saying that, in my experience of working across the denominations in central America and South Africa, every group that would otherwise have turned to using bombs if they
  1002
  wanted to make a point, either in their own country or perhaps in London—I should say in passing that we still do not know who caused the bomb in New York; it could have been an IRA-related bomb or one linked to Yugoslavia—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is stretching it now. The Chair was patient with and understanding of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), but allusions to New York and South Africa go way beyond the scope of the Bill. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) should either come back to the Bill or draw his remarks to a conclusion.
  Mr. Bottomley: I anticipated guidance from the Chair because I was about to say that, if we want people to understand why we need to control the public expenditure costs related to the Bill—I would not anticipate guidance that that was out of order—we need to understand that it is not done simply by a reinsurance pool. Establishing the pool or providing a guarantee if the pool is exhausted leads to increased public expenditure which it is the primary duty of the 651 hon. Members in the House, whether they are below the Gangway or occupy the Speaker's Chair, to reduce.
  Reference has been made to the need to deliver public order—we were reminded of that by the hon. Member for Upper Bann and other hon. Members. The point is that other people have given up violence when they have the opportunity to vote. In the House, we have the opportunity of debate as well.
  Those who are concerned about reducing their insurance premium—that is, for insurance up to £100,000 —and those who will pay extra to the pool should accept the invitation to consider other ways of reducing the background to the events against which they are protecting themselves and against which the House and the Government are trying to protect them. That does not simply mean understanding why it is wrong for people to let off bombs and bullets and why it is important to understand the words of the seven-year-old to her parents after the Baltic Exchange bomb, "Why are they trying to hurt me?" Such a question can draw a response from those around the disloyalists and the Provisional IRA. Effectively, the cross on which that girl is put becomes as important and as powerful as the cross on a ballot paper. In the end, those two forms of the cross will outfight the bombers and those using guns to intimidate or kill others.
  I suspect that if people in the city—I do not mean simply the city of London, because the cities of Westminster, Warrington, Manchester, Leicester and so on are also important—understand that they can provide support to non-governmental organisations, which may be by small amounts of money but mainly by a degree of interest, we shall find that in the United Kingdom, as in other countries around the world, the terrorists will understand that they will not be successful with their present methods.
  There are ways to increase understanding, but I recommend that people should not simply listen to this debate. When a book called "May the Lord in his Mercy be Kind to Belfast" by Tony Parker is published next week, people will get a greater understanding and be able to share in such debates inside the Chamber and outside.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. John Bowis: To follow the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)— without testing your patience or tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker—they were talking about a reinsurance policy. It was not necessarily the reinsurance policy in the Bill, but, nevertheless, an important reinsurance policy for future peace in these islands.
  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East because earlier this week I followed him when we were talking about ending violence in another part of the world—in Africa—and seeing how the pieces can be picked up after a 30-year war and contributions made towards that. In this debate, we are talking about a similar period of violence and destruction and how we can help to ensure that the pieces are picked up.
  This measure will not defeat terrorism, but it will help to ensure that the objectives of terrorism are not achieved. Terrorism has many forms, but the terrorism that we see, especially in this island, is aimed at a number of objectives. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham paid tribute to constituents of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), and we all share that. The spirit to which he referred is a British spirit, although it incorporates someone who came to the United Kingdom from Ethiopia. That spirit is the reason why the aim of killing and maiming cannot succeed.
  In my constituency, I have had attempts to disrupt services—two bombs were placed on railway lines outside Clapham Junction. Neither of those attempts succeeded because the people who run and organise the services got going again. Within half an hour of my being on those sites, the trains were running and people were getting back to work. That is the way in which we prevent the objectives from being achieved.
  Another objective is that of causing as much economic damage to the United Kingdom as the terrorists can manage. The Bill will ensure that the objective is not achieved. The economic damage may be damage to business premises or shops and jobs. It may be damage that is done to the financial base that underwrites the United Kingdom economy—in particular, the insurance industry. Attached to all that was the attempt to destroy a church in the City and the reaction and response to that. None of the objectives will be achieved.
  This Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State introduced after some of the most able deliberations and consultations with the people most affected and the experts in the field that we have ever had, will go a long way to provide the collective response that we need to ensure that the terrorist objective fails. The measure is right and is welcome. It is right because it is the safety net —it plugs the loopholes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said, the costs will be monitored and regular reports will be made. Reference was made to the fact that we must ensure that fraud is not allowed to creep into the system.
  We must stress that the measure is based on the principle that it will in no way assist the uninsured. People may have the impression that we have introduced a measure which will mean that they will not need to bother in the future—the Government will pick up the tab. The hon. Member for Tottenham should tell the minicab driver
  1004
  in his constituency that the Government have not done anything in the measure to discourage him from taking out full comprehensive insurance in the future. I believe that that driver suggested that such insurance might cost £2,000 for a £1,500 car. He should shop around: the only justification for such a premium would be a very bad record and, no doubt, no one with such a record would be driving a minicab. The hon. Gentleman's constituent can be reassured that affordable insurance is available; however, I take the point about compensation for any threat to his livelihood.
  It is important not to distort the market and I believe that the Bill goes to great lengths to ensure that that will not happen. It provides a safety net, rather than competition with existing insurance facilities. Some legislation presents us with a temptation to step in, but this Bill does not: although it commits us to ensuring that the risk is underwritten, it will encourage neither high costs nor inefficiency in the system.
  The Bill also requires everyone in the community, especially those running businesses, to take sensible precautions against terrorism. Firms in my constituency have expressed concern about structures that could be at risk—gas holders, for instance. We must ensure that such risks are tackled by the managers of the establishments concerned. A home owner does not simply rely on his insurance company to protect him once his home has been burgled; he must also rely on his initiative to make such damage less likely. It is crucial to take such precautions, with police advice.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify three points. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on the subject of looting, he responded fairly up to a point; that point involved the protection of an establishment by a security service or firm. Will the payment of insurance following a terrorist act be dependent on such protection, or will the protection be the norm in any event, regardless of whether an act of terrorism has taken place?
  My second point concerns the definition of "terrorist", which lawyers doubtless have at their fingertips. Terrorism in London has not always been connected with such bodies as the IRA; London has experienced other forms of anarchistic, violent vandalism. At what point does such action become terrorism and qualify under the Bill?
  Thirdly, how will Lloyd's fit in? The way in which companies and their reinsurance companies will join the Pool Reinsurance Company is fairly straightforward, but I am not sure how Lloyd's will do so without undermining the unlimited liability criteria on which it has been judged in the past. Agreement may have been reached and Lloyd's may have taken account of this in its plans for the future; none the less, I believe that the issue should be clarified.
  We should pay tribute not only to the Government, but to the British insurance industry. It has taken some knocks; risks have gone wrong and it has had bad publicity from time to time. Ultimately, however, when something goes wrong in our households, businesses or jobs, it is to Lloyd's that we turn and it rarely lets us down. The Bill will ensure that it will not let us down in the event of terrorist acts of violence and vandalism.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Bell: With the leave of the House, I should Like to wind up briefly on behalf of the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) had the benefit of my legal advice earlier. I am happy to say that it was covered by privilege, being given on the Floor of the House, so I am not liable if it turns out to be wrong. I shall, however, leave it to the Minister to give his definition of terrorism as he sees it, and to define the participation of Lloyd's. It would be interesting to know how it can participate, given its syndicate system.
  We enjoyed the eloquent speech of the right hon. Member of Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) about the role of the City of London police. We sometimes forget that they are separate from the rest of our police Force. They have played a strong and significant role in the face of difficult and serious circumstances.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) demonstrated the unanimity of the House. When the hon. Member for Battersea congratulated the Government, I thought that he would also congratulate the Opposition not only on supporting the Government fully, but on making clear their support beforehand so that hon. Members unable to be present could leave earlier. The hon. Member for Gordon spoke of the Government as the reinsurer of last resort, and of the capital base behind them. It is, of course, money in the bank for anyone whose claim ends up on the desk of the Pool Reinsurance Company and could not be met in any other way.
  The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who declared his interest at an early stage, made an interesting point. He said that he thought that there should be mutual cover for mutual risk, leading to mutual insurance. That was a valid point, which again demonstrated the significant role that insurance can play in the community and the need for all of us to pull together.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) based his speech on personal experience in Northern Ireland. He referred to what one might describe as the excessive publicity which follows terrorist acts. Having examined the press coverage of such events in preparation for the debate, I feel sure that there is excessive publicity. I am reminded of the sinking of an oil tanker off the Shetlands. The television reporter asked someone on the spot, "'What is the worst that can happen now?" I think that we spend too much time considering the worst that can happen, rather than the best. Given the means available to the state as the reinsurer of last resort and the flexibility of the insurance market, it is clear that we can respond to the crisis in the market and ensure that businesses continue.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) showed the Opposition a ray of light when he said that it was appropriate to intervene in markets when they failed. Opposition Members will remember that in times to come: every time we call for intervention, we can justify it on the basis of market failure. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) made a first-class constituency speech, showing the kind of speech that hon. Members can make on the Floor of the House when they are not inhibited by the Whips and are free to speak on behalf of their constituents. The Whips look up in surprise, but one of the great attributes of today's debate has been the absence of any contribution from them other than benign nodding and an occasional glance at the clock.
  1006
  By drawing national attention to the plight of his two constituents, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham rendered a significant service not only to them but to the debate and to the standing of the House of Commons. We were also grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who spoke both as a former Northern Ireland Minister and a Lloyd's name. He brought some extremely helpful knowledge to the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—who has devoted a good deal of his parliamentary time to the group known as New Consensus—introduced an extra dimension in relation to what can and what should happen, and spoke of the possible role of Northern Ireland in making Bills such as this unnecessary in future.
  The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made an interesting speech. He, too, is a former Northern Ireland spokesman. He mentioned Mr. Robert Adley. I must tell the House that when I heard of Mr. Adley's death this morning I put on this tie in his honour. He and I shared an interest in ties with the hon. Member for Gosport and other hon. Members, and I think that his wife Jane would be gratified to know that on the day of his death reference has been made to him in the Chamber.
  Mr. Viggers: We do not often have an opportunity to pay tribute to an hon. Friend, but I should like to add to the comments made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). It was courteous of him to refer to our late colleague Robert Adley, who was held in great affection in the House.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks.
  I think that I have covered the issues raised, and I have one or two points to put to the Minister. It has been stated that the legislation is retrospective. The question is whether the Bill is genuinely retrospective. I am satisfied that it is, and that when enacted it will be retrospective. The Minister may wish to clarify that. There is consensus in the House on the measure.
  8 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I congratulate all hon. Members who have participated—our proceedings have revealed a remarkable and rare unanimity among us.
  In the debate, I have been accused of introducing interventionism. It just goes to show what a wet left-winger like myself, when introduced to the Department of Trade and Industry, can do to effect changes in Government policy. As I said in my opening speech, such interventionism is designed to correct a market failure where the national interest requires it.
  I have never been an anarchist who does not believe in any Government intervention. I have always believed that the national interest should be safeguarded by the Government, but I have taken a different view of the national interest from that of, for example, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). It is a sign of the unanimity in the House that the hon. Gentleman, from one wing of the Labour party, and myself, from the opposite extreme of the political spectrum in the Conservative party, were able to unite in support of the Bill.

  1007
  I accept the correction of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), for whom I have the highest respect, when he referred to my mention of the infinitesimal chances of the IRA or any terrorist group succeeding in compelling the British Government to change policy as a result of acts of violence. He said that the correct word should be "non-existent", and I certainly accept his correction, although "infinitesimal" means so small as not to be perceived.
  I certainly agree that we in this country can never allow Government policy to be dictated by acts of violence. We may have to respond to acts of violence with measures such as the Bill, but the achievement of the political objectives that inspire the violence will never be conceded by Her Majesty's Government, whatever their political complexion. To do so would be to subvert the basis of democratic society and institutions of democracy such as the House.
  We should allow ourselves some general reflections on the Bill's purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was right to say that we should all become more vigilant. There have been some recent terrorist apprehensions by the police. I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) that the City police, the Westminster police and the Metropolitan police deserve the highest praise for the way in which they handled the consequences of the bombs in the City and elsewhere in the capital.
  As a consequence of increased public vigilance, we have been able to apprehend terrorist suspects, and we hope that those responsible for all the acts of violence will be apprehended. Through our vigilance, we can all participate in the national interest.
  My constituency borders the borough of Warrington. Bronwen Vickers, whose leg had to be amputated as a result of the explosion in Warrington, is one of my constituents. The effects of terrorist violence have been felt in the north-west of England, which is close to home for me. It must be the united desire of everyone in the House to remain vigilant and to help to defeat the current terrorist outbreak that is causing so much hurt.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who paid me a surprising compliment by commenting on the moderation that I have displayed during the debate: we would play into the hands of terrorists if we exaggerated the consequences of violence. I believe, and always have done, that the best response is to be resigned but determined.
  We must be determined not to be deflected from our political objectives and to say, "Try as you might, and although it may hurt us or cost us money, we shall then bear the cost that you impose on us and redouble our efforts to preserve the essence of our democratic system free from the taint of violence." We shall respond by the counter-measures that we take—not only by policing, but by introducing measures such as the Bill—in order to neutralise, and more than neutralise, the effects of the violence used in an attempt to defeat the democratic process.
  I have been asked a number of technical questions, and I shall try to respond to as many as possible. I know that there is considerable interest in the next debate, so I shall
  1008
  not delay the House too long. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) mentioned the Bill's retrospective application. The Bill is drafted to apply to contracts of insurance entered into from 1 January. That date does not appear in the Bill, but that general power is contained in the Bill, and it has been made plain during the debate that it will apply to contracts of insurance from 1 January.
  The sums of money that the Government ultimately may have to be paid will be identified in a separate vote within the Department of Trade and Industry's votes. Any accruals that may fall due will appear in the appropriation accounts. There will be opportunities in Parliament during the year to debate the way in which the scheme has worked. There will doubtless be other general debates as well.
  I cannot commit the Leader of the House or the business managers, as I am now inhibited and no longer an inhibitor as a member of the Whips Office. Therefore, I cannot say to what extent we shall be able to debate matters related to the Bill once it is enacted, as I hope it will be. I am sure that there will be many opportunities for us to discuss the Bill's general principles and the way in which it has worked in practice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield also asked about the costs of the recent explosion at Bishopsgate. I return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Upper Bann, who deplored the knee-jerk reactions, scaremongering and exaggerations of the instant pundits that were so gleefully reported by the press. I think that people, particularly those who work in the City of London and the insurance industry, should know better than to respond with the comments that we heard in the immediate aftermath of the explosions, both at St. Mary Axe and at Bishopsgate.
  As was proved in the case of St. Mary Axe, the pundits were talking through their hats and did nothing but damage to the cause we are debating. They gave nothing but help to the IRA by their intemperate and ignorant comments. If there is another explosion, I hope that the instant pundits will curb their desire for a brief moment of publicity and say nothing until they know what they are talking about.
  As for the cost of the Bishopsgate explosion, I am not in a position to give an accurate figure, because too many uncertainties still surround it. It is not yet certain how much work has to be done on some of the buildings, so we do not know how much the work will cost. We do not know how much of the damage was insured against terrorist risk. Some insurance policies hang over from last year and include terrorist cover. They will not expire until later this year. So many buildings that may have suffered as a result of the attack may already be covered by contracts of insurance. We therefore will not know the total cost for many months.
  It is not yet certain how much of what has been insured will fall within the current arrangements, so we do not know to what extent Pool Reinsurance will be called on to pay out. Finally, it is not yet certain how high the income of Pool will be this year, so we cannot at this stage predict what calls on the Government there may be.
  Although this may not be regarded as an informative response, it at least has the merit of accuracy—unlike some of the specific figures given by people for previous

  1009
  explosions, figures that were subsequently found to be utterly misleading. It would be wrong to adopt that approach.
  The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), in an excellent speech on behalf of his constituents, drew attention to the bravery of certain drivers and to their speed of thought. I share the regret expressed by other hon. Members about their loss, but I reiterate that the scheme is an insurance scheme. I cannot guarantee a solution to the sort of problem that the hon. Gentleman discussed. It depends on the degree of take-up as a result of the operation of the scheme.
  I welcome other measures that are being taken, especially the establishment of a trust fund, from which I hope the losses sustained by public-spirited individuals such as the constituents of the hon. Member for Tottenham will be paid. I hope that people will contribute generously.
  I have asked the insurance industry to ensure that third party, fire and theft policies always cover loss due to terrorism and explosions of this kind. There is no reason why such cover should be excluded; after all, the reason why we are debating the Bill is that, in the past, insurance companies did not consider the liability to which they might be exposed from terrorist explosions, because they were not a problem of which we had any great experience.
  I fully accept the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann in support of the hon. Member for Tottenham—that there is a lacuna here; but it is not best plugged by Government compensation. The arrangement for Great Britain will be sufficient for our needs. The situation here is rather different from that in Northern Ireland, and we do not necessarily need a comprehensive scheme crafted in the same way to cover the whole country.
  Unless I can be persuaded by some compelling argument to extend the scheme from Northern Ireland to Great Britain—no one has succeeded in persuading me yet, not even the eloquent hon. Member for Upper Bann —we will not adopt the scheme for Northern Ireland here. I cannot speak for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The attractions or otherwise of what I am introducing for Great Britain to the Northern Ireland Office and to Northern Ireland are a matter to take up with him. I am sure that the hon. Member for Upper Bann will receive the usual convincing response from my right hon. and learned Friend.
  I will be happy to respond by letter to points that I have not been able to deal with this evening. I refer particularly to the small but important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Meanwhile, I hope that the spirit of amity in which this matter has been debated this evening will survive. If we ever suffer a repetition of the appalling terrorist incidents of recent times, I hope that they will serve not to divide us, but to strengthen the unity that has been so amply demonstrated this evening.
  I thank all hon. Members who have taken part, especially the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who speaks with such authority for the Labour party on these matters. I thank hon. Members for assisting the quick passage of the Bill through the House, because people outside expect the Government to respond quickly in emergencies such as this.
  I believe that the combination of swift action and measured response which this Bill represents is legislation
  1010
  and Government action at its best. Government action with the support of both sides of the House is all too rarely found in our political system or, indeed, in political systems anywhere in the world. That is to the credit of all, and it should be a further demonstration to the IRA that its cause will never win.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.
  Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed, pursuant to Order [7 May.]

  REINSURANCE (ACTS OF TERRORISM) BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of State to meet such obligations of his as are mentioned in the Act;

  (b) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

  8.16 pm
  Mr. Bell: The Bill comes before the House as a result of the shortage of capacity in the worldwide reinsurance market and because of the fact that certain European reinsurance companies withdrew their support from our insurance market. It is therefore less to do with terrorism than with insurance.
  Under clause 1, the power of the state comes in behind the insurance market and stands four square behind the market of the City of London. We welcome that.
  Under clause 2, the Treasury will undertake any liability that may flow from the Bill. We welcome the involvement of the Treasury. We see that a mutual company is to be created, and we welcome that idea and urge all reinsurance companies in the country fully to involve themselves.
  We see that the DTI will have certain responsibilities —two posts will be required. We know that the Department is responsible for oversight of our insurance market, so we welcome that aspect of the Bill too.
  We commend the Third Reading of the Bill—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Perhaps I should let the hon. Gentleman know that we are discussing the money resolution, not Third Reading—although they may be virtually indistinguishable.
  Mr. Bell: Since they are virtually indistinguishable, I shall leave my comments at that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  The House, pursuant to Order [7 May], immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  Mr. Bell: Having ensured that the money resolution and Third Reading are not mutually exclusive in lawyers' terms, I shall not repeat my earlier remarks. I shall say

  1011
  only that the final message from the Opposition, which is similar to that from the Government, is that there is no future in terrorism, destruction and death. No political solutions are on offer. The message to the IRA, or any other terrorist organisation, is that it is not worth it—it is not worth a bean. I hope that that message comes over cleafrly.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Automated Credit Transfers
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert. G. Hughes.]
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am grateful that Madam Speaker has chosen this subject for debate, because her choice recognises the social and economic importance of the effect of automated credit transfer upon rural sub-post offices nationwide. There have been six early-day motions on the subject over the past few months, attracting at least 200 signatures at the last count. It has been the subject of written and oral questions, including two in Prime Minister's Question Time, and a debate in the other place. There will be a debate on the subject, in Opposition time, next week.
  Despite all the attention, the issue has not been resolved, nor have key aspects of it been made clearer. The issue is important, first and foremost, for the impact that it could have on the millions of pensioners who use their post office on a weekly basis to cash their pensions and benefits. For most pensioners, that weekly visit to the post office is the most convenient and desirable way to receive their benefits. It has many merits for them. It gives them an opportunity to catch up on news and gossip, and to find out what is happening in the local community and to friends and neighbours.
  That visit is also an opportunity to gather from the postmasters and postmistresses other information that may be useful and beneficial to them. The individuals who work behind the counters are, as most hon. Members—certainly all who represent rural constituencies—will recognise, people who are made enormously knowledgeable by the very nature Of their work, combining as they do the functions of Government clerk, small shopkeeper and occasional social worker.
  Perhaps I may be permitted to quote a postmistress in my local village of Garrabost, Mrs. Joan Anne Campbell. Speaking to the local newspaper, the Stornoway Gazette, Mrs. Campbell said:
  "Your local post office is more than just that—it is a public service. It is a place to get forms filled in, a place to meet and have a chat and, sometimes for those behind the counter, it's almost like being a social worker. A local sub-post officer is really the centre-point of a community and has a very important part to play."
  That may have been said by someone working in a local post office in the Western Isles, but it will be recognised as valid and true throughout the rural areas of Britain.
  Unlike banks, sub-post offices are easily accessible to the vast majority of elderly people who use them. As is not the case with banks, there are sub-post offices in the majority of villages throughout Great Britain. I have been quoted the figure of 60 per cent. of villages having a sub-post office. Those who run post offices are familiar with, and familiar to, their elderly customers. They provide a point of reassurance for the pensioners who use them. The Government should see them as an invaluable asset, rather than as an encumbrance or a drain on money that they have to stop.
  The non-appearance one week of a pensioner who usually uses the post office will immediately be noticed by the local sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress. If a pensioner appears but looks a bit peaky, that will be noticed and observed. That kind of contact, that kind of

  1013
  relationship between people, is unique to the post office network of Great Britain. It could not be duplicated by the banking service.
  The system is not an archaic hangover, a traditional aspect of British national life that is best done away with. On the contrary, with the advent of care in the community, the social role of sub-post offices as dispensers of advice and services, as well as of pensions and benefits, ought to be enhanced, not diminished. If they had not had that network of 20,000 post offices and sub-post offices, the Government would have had to invent it when they came to implement care in the community.
  It is a foolish economy for the Government to be considering closing rural sub-post offices, whatever the purported savings of a switch to automated credit transfer. What savings there will be may be at the financial expense of the pensioners, because of the charges that may be deducted by the banks or the loss of interest on delayed payments, which may be retained by the Government.
  If the move goes ahead, it will be greatly to the detriment of pensioners, who will be much inconvenienced. The switch to ACT will mean that pensioners will lose the right to receive their pensions on a weekly basis. Payments will be made monthly In arrears. That may be convenient and financially attractive for the Government, but I cannot for a moment believe that it will be convenient for the pensioners. Many pensioners—perhaps even a majority of them—are relatively well off, but many live a hand-to-mouth existence. For them, it is impossible to conceive of budgeting other than on a weekly basis. It would make their lives still more difficult to have to be constantly a month in arrears because of the switch to ACT.
  Pensioners also need to have cash ready to hand to buy the little odds and ends that they need on a day-to-day basis—groceries, newspapers and so on. Where can they obtain that ready cash if the Government go ahead and succeed in switching benefits to direct payments into banks? Pensioners will often have to cope with the fact that there will be no bank in their locality, and they will have to travel many miles to go into town to withdraw money for the week or the fortnight, on buses or even by hiring a taxi if the bus network is not there or the service is not convenient. That will be enormously inconvenient and troubling to many pensioners.
  We must also bear in mind the fact that pensioners will have to visit the bank in person to draw money, whereas someone who is elderly, who is ill that week, or who is partially sighted or disabled, can send a representative to the local post office to pick up his or her pension. With banks that is not possible.
  I have already mentioned the invaluable social role of the rural post office, and there is no doubt that the sub-post office network will be badly hit by the loss of the business that pensions and benefits represent. Inevitably, many will close as a direct consequence of the switch to the payment of pensions and benefits by automated transfer into bank accounts. Almost 13 million people visit their local post office each week to pick up their pensions, and that business from the Department of Social Security represents one third of the turnover of Post Office Counters Ltd. That is a greater proportion of business than comes from the Royal Mail, which represents only one fifth of the total turnover. Of that enormous benefits turnover, about 18 per cent. is drawn through sub-post offices.
  1014
  Clearly the loss of the pensions and benefits business will have a direct impact on the viability of local sub-post offices. Moreover, the loss of that business will cause the loss of other business, on which sub-post offices rely to make them financially viable. We must remember that post offices are often shops as well, and that the people who come in to pick up their pensions also stop to buy newspapers, groceries, stationery and a variety of other goods.
  If those people did not come in to pick up their pensions and benefits, they would not buy the groceries and newspapers either, and the loss of that secondary business would be a massive blow to rural sub-post offices. If offices had to close because the loss of that business meant that they were no longer viable, many villages would lose not only their post office but their only shop. That would be a severe blow to many villages.
  The Government talk about offering their customers choice. However, if local sub-post offices close many people who would have wished to exercise that choice will be denied the opportunity to do so. They will be forced against their will to use automated credit transfer. The Government must take on board the fact that the exercise of choice by a minority, by making the sub-post office network no longer viable, could have a knock-on effect on the majority of people and in effect remove the choice that they would have exercised if the post offices in their communities had still been open.
  There is another point to make about consumer choice. If the Government were merely offering information to pensioners about the existence of automated credit transfer, there would be little objection from either side of the House. The Government already provide the option of automated credit transfer, and there can be little objection to making that option widely known to pensioners and to others who might want to choose it, so long as the choice is offered in a neutral and even-handed way. But clearly, that is not happening.
  Both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), have made it clear that the Government are actively encouraging pensioners to switch to automated credit transfer. On 12 March this year, the Under-Secretary said:
  "Our policy is to encourage the use of automated credit transfer".—[Official Report, 12 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 751.]
  In other words, the Government are not neutral or even-handed; they are peddling a particular option for their own self-interested reasons.
  That fact is borne out by a trial of three new forms being sent to 24,000 people who are due to receive their pensions for the first time. The forms are designed to tell the pensioners what pension they are entitled to and how they may collect it. I have obtained copies of the forms, and each one of the three types is being sent out to a sample of 8,000 new pensioners. The first form is the most even-handed, because there is a section, part 9, headed:
  "How you want to be paid—you can choose".
  That is fair enough. The form lists two options, the first of which is:
  "Straight into a bank account or building society account".
  Then various details are given about that option.
  The second option is described as:
  "By order book—at a post office".
  Slightly fewer details are then given about that option. Later in the form, there are two sections for pensioners to

  1015
  fill in, one of which will provide for payment of the pension straight into a bank or building society account, and the other of which will provide payment by order book at a post office. The pensioner can choose simply by filling in the form and sending it off.
  That form provides the pensioner with a clear choice, although there could be objections about the way in which the two choices are described, because the first choice—payment straight into a bank or building society account—is accompanied by a list of its advantages, such as the fact that interest can be gathered on the money paid into such accounts. We might think that it was a bit disingenuous of the Government not to mention that they will be gathering interest from the money that they pay out, not weekly, but monthly in arrears. But we can leave that point to one side.
  We might also complain that the option of the order book is described, but does not have any corresponding list of advantages appended. Nevertheless, there is enough information there for the pensioner to make a fairly clear, well-informed choice between the two options.
  The second form, however, falls well short of offering the pensioner a clear choice between the two options that are available. In the equivalent part 9 of that form it says again,
  "How do you want to be paid? You can choose."
  However, it does not give two options. It starts by listing
  "Straight into a bank account or a building society account."
  Then it gives the same list of advantages and procedures.
  At the bottom of the form it says simply:
  "If you want any more information, get in touch with your Social Security office."
  There is no mention whatsoever of the post office option.
  Also at the bottom of the form there is provision for a form to be filled in by the pensioner in order to get the pension paid straight into a bank or building society account. It then, finally, mentions payment by order book at a post office and asks the question:
  "Do you want to be paid by order book at a post office?"
  It does not mention any advantages or give any details. There are simply two boxes, one to be ticked for "no" and one to be ticked for "yes", and it says:
  "We will write to you about this."
  So hardly any information is made available to the pensioner. The pensioner has to tick a box and send the form off, and the DSS will send the pensioner further information about the post office option.
  That form is bad enough, but the third form that is being tested with 8,000 pensioners is even worse. It is similar to the other forms. It has a section headed:
  "How you want to be paid",
  and, as in the second form, the option of having the pension paid straight into a bank or building society account is described in great detail. All the supposed advantages are listed, but again there is no mention of the post office option. It simply says at the bottom of the form that if the pensioner wants any more information he or she should get in touch with the social security office.
  At the bottom of the coupon that has to be filled in by the pensioner in order to take advantage of the option of having the pension paid straight into a bank or building society account there are the words:
  "Do you want to be paid by other means?"
  1016
  It does not say whether those other means are through the post office or any other way. There are again two boxes, one to be ticked for "no" and the other for "yes", followed by the words:
  "We will write to you about this."
  So the first of these forms points out the advantages of using automated transfer and describes to some extent the option of using a post office. The second form gives information only about banks and building societies; it mentions post offices, but gives no information whatsoever about that option. The third form does not even mention the fact that there is a post office option; it simply says that there are other options available.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Henley, made what I regard as a pretty astounding and breathtaking statement about these forms in the other place. He said:
  "The simple aim behind what we are doing is to test the effect of each of those forms."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 March 1993; Vol. 543, c. 1544.]
  It would not take an Einstein to figure out the effect of these forms. Obviously, the more automated transfer is talked of, and the less the post office is mentioned, the more the pensioners will opt for the former. That will clearly be the effect of these three forms.
  This is really a dodgy way to go about informing pensioners of their rights and options in receiving their pensions. Surely the Government should be trying to make their forms for pensioners more, rather than less, helpful.
  I expect that the Minister is a fervent exponent of the citizens charter, and I ask him how it is consistent with that charter deliberately to withhold information from pensioners, DSS customers, as the last two forms do. I believe that the Government have no right to be steering and manipulating pensioners in this way. They should be offering genuine choice to pensioners, not a fake version of it.
  I am looking for two things from the Minister, on behalf of the Government, when he replies. The first is a retraction of the Government's statement that it is their intention to encourage pensioners to use automated transfer. I want the Minister to be able to say on behalf of the Government that pensioners will be given genuine freedom of choice in this matter, without constraint or manipulation of any kind. The second is to ask his colleagues in the DSS to give a commitment that these trial forms will be shredded and thrown away, and new ones produced—forms that will provide proper comprehensive, unbiased information for pensioners.
  The 20,000 post offices and sub-post offices of Britain are not just local centres of community life; they are also, I believe, a manifestation and a symbol in each town and village of Britain, whether in the Western Isles or Tunbridge Wells, of the wider national community, the country to which we all belong. A genuinely Conservative Government would have as one of its foremost priorities the preservation and enhancement of these symbols, these centres, of our national life.
  But this Administration is not, of course, Conservative in that traditional and worthy sense. This is an Administration of libertarian dogmatists and cheeseparing accountants, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I fear that rural post offices are intended to be the latest in the long roll call of their victims.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before we continue, I remind hon. Members that an Adjournment

  1017
  debate normally lasts only half an hour. It is understood that only the hon. Member raising the subject and the Minister may speak unless both grant their permission to other hon. Members. I know that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has allowed one hon. Member to come into the debate. I am sure that neither he nor the Minister will mind if others come in. Nevertheless, I believe that we should maintain the tradition.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Bill Olner: I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on choosing this subject for the Adjournment debate. Before the general election, there was much talk about a double whammy. I do not know whether the wording of the advertisement was correct, or whether it had the intended impact. It certainly created a great deal of confusion. On this issue, there is a genuine double threat which pensioners have rightly picked up. I have had more letters in my postbag this past fortnight about the threat to post offices than I have had during the whole of the Maastricht debate, which trundled on here for a considerable time. This is a tremendously important issue. I am a little dismayed by the fact that the Government must have realised the fear that was felt by pensioners about the threat to their post offices and the threat to their ability to draw at post offices the benefits to which they were entitled.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles mentioned post offices in rural areas. My constituency has a fairly extensive rural area and the post offices there are as my hon. Friend describes. In the urban areas, sub-post offices are also canters of the communities in which they are located. I am sure that many hon. Members have gone past post offices on pension day. One certainly knows which day is pension day when one passes a sub-post office. The pensioners have a ritual of queueing there fairly early. I do not know whether it is because they think that the Government will cause a run on the pound. Sub-post offices are an important and integral part of most communities, whether urban or rural.
  It is not only pensioners who go to sub-post offices. If sub-post offices are forced to close because of a lack of business in terms of benefits being paid out, there is no other place within the immediate area where people can get television licence stamps, television licences or saving stamps, and there is no other place where they can pay their water rates or their council tax bills. The sub-post office outlet is an important part of our communities.
  Most of the pensioners to whom I have spoken and most of the letters that I have received from pensioners say that they do not want pensions to be paid into banks or into building societies by automated credit transfer—ACT. They want to retain the right to go to the post offices to draw their pensions, or, if they cannot draw their pensions themselves, to he able to have their families or nominated people to draw the pensions there for them.
  The majority of pensioners do not have bank accounts or building society accounts, but that is not the only point. As a result of the banks' meanness in many respects, the fear has crept in that once pensioners are trapped into having their pensions paid into those establishments, they will start charging pensioners for the transactions into and out of the accounts. If money is paid into the account, it
  1018
  must come out of the account at some time. I understand that banks are looking closely at their charges to customers.
  There is the twin fear about the monthly payment, which has been much mooted as a replacement for the weekly payment. Monthly payments are wrong in two respects. First, they will be paid in arrears. Pensioners already struggle in many respects. How on earth can they be expected to live for three weeks without a pension? It may be nice for people on large salaries to receive payments in arrears, but it is not good for people on low incomes, such as pensioners. Secondly, monthly payments will accelerate the closure of sub-post offices. Instead of a sub-post office doing four transactions a month, it will do only one. The position of sub-post offices is based on their throughput. If the throughput is on a monthly basis, it will obviously be very much reduced.
  Sub-post offices are in communities, they serve communities and they are very much at the heart of communities. It would be a terrible loss to communities if they were closed. I should like the Minister to remove some of the fear that pensioners genuinely feel: that they are being thrust into the option of having their pensions paid by direct payment or paid monthly. That fear is being transmitted to pensioners who fear that their sub-post offices will be lost. I should like the Minister to give an assurance that no Government action will bring that about.
  8.55 pm
  Dr. Michael Clark: Like the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), I congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on succeeding in having this Adjournment debate tonight, which is important and most timely. I thank him not only for allowing me to take part in the debate, but for inviting me to take part in it. In his letter of invitation, he said that there was a significant point that we should all make and that it was important that it had cross-party support. I am delighted that he has been so generous and I thank him very much.
  Although it may be true that technically I was the first to raise the matter in the House when I raised it last Thursday at Prime Minister's Question Time, I readily concede that the hon. Member for Western Isles must have applied for the debate before I put my question. Technically, I was the first, but I concede that he was the first in mental attitude, and I gladly make that point.
  The hon. Member for Western Isles spent some time going through the forms which many of us have. I am glad that he did so, because there is little doubt that the forms are an attempt to encourage pensioners and others on benefits to use banks and building societies rather than the post offices. I have no wish to stop anyone using a bank or a building society if that is what they wish to do. I am sure that the hon. Members for Western Isles and for Nuneaton agree with that. That is all right if it is people's free choice and if they are not being led by the nose in another direction. One can imagine that for people who are a long way from a post office and for people who pay most of their bills by cheque, it might be an advantage for the pension to be paid into a bank and to be used to settle their bills by cheque. It could be a positive advantage for people

  1019
  who are housebound. But to lead the beneficiaries of payment to believe that there is only one major choice, a bank or a building society, is quite wrong.
  I will not repeat what the hon. Member for Western Isles said about the forms—he went through them comprehensively. I just add one point. On the third form, the post office is not mentioned. At the bottom it says "By other means". At the top of the form, and on the other forms, when they want the pensioner or the person collecting benefit to use a bank or building society, the bank or building society comes first in the hope that the pensioner will tick that first. On the third form there are two blocks. One is
  "How often do you want your Retirement Pension paid? Every four weeks? Every 13 weeks?"
  We know that most people want it every four weeks, so that comes first and every 13 weeks comes second, because it is the option that is less likely to be used. But when it comes to the bottom, if one can find the post office on the second form that the hon. Member for Western Isles referred to, what is the first question?
  "Do you want to be paid by order book at a post office? No, Yes."
  It is not very often in English that we suggest the answer in this form. It is usually "Yes or No". It is the same on the third form:
  "Do you want to be paid by other means? No, Yes."
  It is a rather strange use of English and it is attempting to lead in a certain direction.
  If people want the money paid into the bank, there is little doubt that sooner or later they finish up with bank charges. Even if a charge is not made for collecting benefit, we all become overdrawn from time to time. Once that happens, the charges escalate out of all proportion. It will happen to people who are least able to pay bank charges.
  The idea that people should be paid benefits three weeks in arrears is no inducement to having benefits paid into a bank or building society. Perhaps somewhere on the form it should say,
  "If you do choose a bank or building society, you understand, do you not, that for the first month you will receive nothing at all? Now, do you want it paid into a bank or building society or would you like it paid by other means?"
  But I do not see that anywhere on the form, which is less than completely honest and open.
  There is another consideration. If anyone should choose payment into a bank or building society, it is possible that the account will be a joint one. Money will then be paid into an account over which the beneficiary does not have total control. This is particularly significant when it comes to child benefit. The whole philosophy behind child benefit as promulgated by the Department of Social Security is that it should be targeted on the mothers. In many cases it goes straight into the mother's purse and into the housekeeping for looking after children without the father having anything to do with it. That is essential in some instances, for reasons that we all know about, but if this benefit were paid into a joint bank account mothers would lose control of money that is meant to help them look after their children.
  There have been several references to the fact that the forms seem designed to lead people to choose banks or building societies. That is the whole presumption. But it is not a true choice. The choice is there if one looks very hard for it. It is there in the first form; it is there, if one looks
  1020
  hard for it, in the second form; but in the third form one could be excused for thinking that there is no choice at all and, even if there is one, it is extremely well hidden. The Conservative party prides itself on offering choice, but in this regard we are not following the philosophy and manifesto of our own party.
  We have heard that the post office network has 20,000 branches, but how many people realise that there are more post office branches than there are branches of the four major banks and the six major building societies combined? It is a marvellous network and an asset to the whole country, whether we live in the Western Isles, John o'Groats or Land's End. In those post offices, 40 per cent. of the business comes from the benefits and 50 per cent. of customers are there to collect the pensions or benefits. There is little doubt that if those receiving pensions and benefits are forced to have them paid into banks and building societies, the post offices will lose 40 per cent. of their business and 50 per cent. of their customers. That will undoubtedly lead to the closure of some post offices. I can see no alternative.
  I do not suggest to the Minister that he removes the possibility of people having their benefit paid into a bank or building society—far from it, because I believe in choice —but the choice should be free and open, not guided.
  A very strong campaign is going on at present and most hon. Members will have seen the leaflet put out by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The campaign is slightly exaggerated, but I do not criticise it for that because any campaign worth its salt will be slightly exaggerated. One exaggerates to make a point and sometimes campaigns that are too modest fail to make their point at all.
  I do not complain about the slight exaggeration, but I am concerned that, as a result of the campaign, many elderly, infirm and sick people are now worried sick that, in future, they will be unable to collect their pension in the normal way. The sooner we squash that anxiety and a categorical statement is issued from the Government to say that choice will remain, the sooner we can put at ease the anxieties and fears of many of our senior citizens in constituencies up and down and east and west of the country.
  To deny choice will remove business from post offices and that will result in closures. Closures would, in due course, eliminate any choice for those who are in most need of it.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Hon. Members are extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) not only for choosing to debate this issue on such a timely occasion, but for his foresight in doing so on an evening when we have the time to do it justice. I am also grateful to him for allowing me to intervene briefly in the debate. I hope not to cover those matters which have already been mentioned.
  I agree with the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), but I take issue with him on one small factual point, because this is not a problem that has just been mentioned in the House in the past few days. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and I were in the House some months ago before Christmas at 5.30 in the morning

  1021
  to discuss it. You, too, were present, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you were, as always, wide awake while some of us were feeling rather sleepy.
  My hon. Friend and I had looked forward in that debate because my hon. Friend had already received some answers from the Department that suggested that the Government were to pursue precisely the experiment that is now before us. We have now learnt the lesson to look at such proposals with a jaundiced eye. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) also raised this subject with the Prime Minister this afternoon.
  We all agree that this is a matter of all-party concern. I am also pleased, as I am sure you are, Madam Deputy Speaker, that at least one Member representing the south-west is here to ensure that the concern felt in the Western Isles is reflected from the other end of the country. This matter concerns all of us who represent rural constituencies.
  The concern that has already been made clear by other hon. Members is that, if discrimination and pressure are to be exerted, this proposal is a step in the wrong direction. If we are to have positive discrimination, it should be towards the essential, public social service that is provided by the sub-post office network.
  The difference in attitude between the service that pensioners and other beneficiaries receive from sub-post offices and that which they could expect to receive from a bank or building society was revealed by the experience of one of my constituents. She had an occupational pension and, for reasons best known to her former employer, it was decided that it should be paid by ACT into a. bank account. My constituent opened an account specifically for that purpose. Because she could not always get to the bank because of the distance involved and ill health, she made arrangements for someone to go there and cash a cheque on a weekly basis on her behalf.
  My constituent found, however, that because the calculations were based on the 52 weeks of the year, the amount from the pension was never exactly the same to the nearest penny each week. That meant that when one cheque was presented for cashing and the sum was paid, she was 1p overdrawn. She then discovered that she was subject to bank charges. It is that difference in attitude between the traditional support and services that the sub-post office network has given and that offered by the only alternative, the banks and building societies, which is causing us so much concern.
  Some 10 per cent. of sub-post offices have disappeared from the network in the past decade, and the proposal that the Department is apparently pursuing would turn that trickle into a veritable stream.
  Hon. Members have said that about 40 per cent. of sub-post office turnover is for benefits of various sorts. In some parts of the country, notably rural areas with high levels of unemployment and perhaps above average numbers of retired people, it reaches 55 or even 60 per cent. of turnover. So the discrimination against rural areas, which can least afford the change, will be that much stronger.
  In conjunction with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the south-west and I have undertaken a number of surveys of the impact of the changes on the sub-post office network. It is clear from our work that upwards of 50 per cent. of village sub-post offices—we recognise that the same
  1022
  situation may not apply in the suburbs or more central areas—would be at risk if the proposals became so persuasive that large numbers of people switched to ACT.
  In those circumstances, the domino effect to which hon. Members have referred would become dramatic. There would, first, be the removal of a slice of benefits. That would be followed by the sub-post office being reduced to community hours, because the number of units would not justify the full number of hours. That would make it less convenient for people in the local community. Finally, because the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress found that it was not viable, not commercial, not worth the effort and perhaps not worth training or keeping staff for that purpose, the post office would go.
  Of those in that category in Cornwall, 45 per cent. have the only village store alongside, in the same building and as part of the same business. So the removal of post office business puts at risk the only general store in the village. I can speak only from experience in the south-west, but in those circumstances, almost invariably the store will go, not only because of the reduction in turnover as the result of the removal of post office business itself but because if people are not drawing their cash over the counter at one side of the building they will not be spending it on the other side. So the store goes.
  In Cornwall in those circumstances, the nearest general store will be, on average, two miles away. The people of whom we are speaking tonight, bearing in mind the limited access to public transort these days, and with only limited access to private transport, will be badly cut off. I recently received a letter from a gentleman who was being persuaded to switch his Government occupational pension to a bank account. He explained that to get to his nearest bank would mean a £15 return taxi fare, which would remove a fair slice from any money that he received. The average distance in Cornwall from some villages to the nearest bank branch is more than 10 miles.
  I hope that we shall hear from the Minister tonight not just that the Department will take seriously the criticisms that hon. Members in all parts of the House have made, but that they are prepared to open a dialogue again wth the Post Office. In recent days, Bill Cockburn, the Post Office's chief executive, has drawn attention to the fact that about 5,000 rural post offices are at stake as a result of the proposals and that many thousands of people would be affected by their closure. He said:
  "If such a thing were to happen, the entire network of post offices would be on the line".
  He put forward a practical, sensible, up-to-date and modern suggestion. He said that the Post Office should work with the Department to develop a high-tech solution in the form of plastic cards which would, he claimed, enable customers to have their payments swiftly dealt with without difficulty through terminals in sub-post offices and with electronic links to the Department. He pointed out:
  "A third of the PO's income is generated by DSS payments at 20,000 outlets."
  I do not intend to repeat points that have already been made, but for the benefit of all concerned—sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, pensioners and all those who live in remote areas or in any village that could be affected—we need a clear statement. I hope that the Minister's reply will offer opportunities for dialogue with the management of the Post Office and reassurance for all those who would be affected by a switch to ACT.

  1023
  I hope, too, that the statement will show clearly that the Department and the Government recognise the value of a national network of post office outlets. As the hon. Member for Rochford said, it is unique to this country and is widely appreciated. If the Minister and the Department are able to do that, I am sure that it will be welcomed in all parts of the House. This, I hope, is the last that we shall hear of this preposterous proposition.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valey): I, too, am grateful to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for initiating this Adjournment debate. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, we have heard the voice of the north and the south. The Ordnance Survey map shows that the Ribble valley is in the centre of the United Kingdom, so we are covering almost every part of the country in the debate.
  My constituency is extremely rural and contains many rural post offices. In some villages, the post office is the only shop. It would be absolutely insane of me to say that post offices should be allowed to survive on their own. Some of them would be unable to do so. Nevertheless, we have to wake up to the reality that many of our rural post offices were under attack well before the introduction of automated credit transfers.
  The opening hours of some village post offices in my constituency have been greatly reduced over the years. The hours have been so contracted in one rural post office that one wonders whether it is worth its remaining open. In another village, the post office operates from a pub. It is in Pendleton. The pub is the "Swan with Two Necks". Customers have to go to the pub for their postal requirements. That is an imaginative compromise.
  We may have to look at innovative ideas so that new life may be breathed into our post offices to ensure that they survive. Some people may prefer ACT instead of having to go to the post office every few weeks. Given the choice, many pensioners may start to drift away from the post office. We must take a realistic look, therefore, at how we are to breathe new life into rural post offices and village stores. Some post offices sell other goods. The turnover of some of them is low and the profits marginal. They work right on the edge between profitability and loss.
  Stamps can now be bought in virtually any shop. That was not the case 15 or so years ago. Stamps could be obtained only from the post office and between certain hours, which was nonsense. Nobody would argue today that stamps ought to be sold only by post offices.
  If we are to attempt to breathe new life into post offices, we ought to consider freeing up post offices so that they can become agencies for banks and building societies. In some small towns and villages, banks and building societies are closing. A building society branch has recently closed in one village in my constituency.
  We should also look at beefing up the Giro bank so that those pensioners who decide that they wish to take their pensions via ACT can do so easily through post offices. The hon. Member for North Cornwall suggested that we should also consider the use of hi-tech in post offices so that they are able to retain their customers.
  Fraud related to pensions and social security payments is running at £100 million a year, and the current
  1024
  administration costs amount to £400 million, so it is clear that something must be done. At the same time, I support the general thrust of the idea that pensioners must be given a choice. Those who want to have their pensions paid by the traditional method are entitled to that facility. However, fresh and lively ideas must be considered so that post offices in outlying regions may be given a new lease of life well into the next century.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this matter before the House. Many hon. Members, from all parties and from many parts of the country, have been given an opportunity to express their concern—concern which has been expressed also in the very many letters that hon. Members, including myself, have received. The constituency that I represent includes urban and rural areas. Of course, this debate is about the rural aspect of the problem, and because its communities are scattered the Western Isles area is very vulnerable. But even in urban areas, many small and distinct communities, such as Riddings in the borough of Scunthorpe, are very concerned about the future of their post offices.
  If we encourage measures as a result of which people do not have a clear choice, many post offices will no longer be viable. Indeed, many rural offices are under considerable threat already. I recently had an opportunity to discuss with the Minister the closure of the sorting offices in the villages of Messingham, Winterton and Burton upon Stather, which very nearly lost their postal delivery staff as well. Fortunately, we managed to have that facility saved. There is no doubt that privatisation in particular has introduced a new element of ruthlessness into the Post Office. If the viability of sub-post offices is in question, they will undoubtedly fail to survive.
  The Minister is not responsible for the Department of Social Security or its policies, but he is responsible for the future of sub-post offices. Many of those who run these offices are small business people. The offices are privately run on a franchise basis, and the businesses are liable to be wiped out. It is ironic that a party which claims to be for small businesses is putting the knife into many people who already face very great difficulty. When one talks to small business people, one discovers that they no longer believe that the Government are for them.
  Many villages—even larger ones like Messingham—have had the experience of their one and only bank closing down and departing due to lack of viability. When the nearest bank is several miles away, it is not sensible to suggest that it would be convenient for people to have benefits paid into bank accounts. Post offices provide other very important services to many people, particularly the elderly. For example, a constituent of mine who is blind relies on people in her sub-post office to help her to fill in forms. No doubt many banks would be willing to provide such a service, but in terms of community care and support there is a distinct difference between a bank and a sub-post office. There is also the social dimension. Many people meet weekly at the post office and, as has been said, they tend to buy goods and services. That is very important for the viability of these establishments. All those are under threat. I hope that the points about monthly payments will be noted. Many pensioners on limited incomes would find

  1025
  it difficult to budget with monthly payments and should have the choice of weekly payments. That provision should be protected.
  Bank charges have been mentioned. It is inevitable that the major banks will impose charges on personal accounts. There has been talk of that for some time. We have heard about the dreadful charges made to people who slip into overdraft, including excessive charges for the letters telling them that they are overdrawn.
  People should have a choice as to how they are paid and whether payment is made monthly or weekly. The forms should not be bullying; they should not suggest to people who are not used to filling in forms, and who find them intimidating, that they will not have a choice.
  Above all, we want to hear from the Minister that he will defend our system of sub-post offices. Without doubt, the proposed change would rip the heart out of many communities because it would remove an essential facility which provides community support and is convenient for many people, particularly in isolated rural areas. The change would also undermine the position of many families who have put much investment into their sub-post office businesses and who have given enormous support and commitment to the people whom they know and serve well. Consideration must be given to those people, and choice on the method of payment must be protected.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I want to add my weight to what has been said. I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on achieving the debate. I represent an area in the southern part of Scotland. My constituency of Midlothian is made up of small towns, villages and hamlets. It borders the southern uplands of Scotland, with the Moorfoot hills on one side and the Pentlands on the other.
  I do not want to repeat other speeches, but I support most of what has been said. I am worried about the lack of mobility of the people we are talking about. We have already heard that there are no bus services in some rural areas. The geographical spread of post offices is ideal. If we wanted to start from scratch to provide a post office system, we would probably place them where they are. Banks and building societies are inclined to cluster around one another. In a small town, they are all in the same street, next door to one another. That provides a choice for those who are mobile, but there are no banks in many hamlets and villages. That must be taken into account when the Minister revises Government policy, which I hope he will do.
  I do business with banks in Scotland, and they are no worse than other banks. Sometimes they ask for a minimum of, say, £50 to be kept in an account to keep it in credit. Some pensioners could not afford to leave £50 in a bank account. With our salaries, we may not be concerned about other aspects concerning cheques, but when people have small, fixed incomes, every pound and every penny count.
  Opening times are also important. Post offices are open longer and have more convenient opening times than some banks. That is another aspect that must be taken into cognisance when we are talking about this problem.
  I shall end with this plea, because I do not want to repeat what has been said—although I endorse everything that has been said. I want to add my weight to the debate,
  1026
  because the problem is not peculiar to rural areas. Obviously, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles could not be more rural. Some of the sub-post offices are in small towns. I was approached by a sub-postmaster in Dalkeith, which is a small town, who is worried that his income will drop and he will have to close. Will we see huge queues in the few sub-post offices that will be left? When payments are made, people form huge queues. If those payments are spread out, it is done in an amicable way.
  I hope that the Minister will take on board what has been said. We sincerely mean what we say—it is not a matter of scoring points. We are not here to be clever, and we are not in a position to score political or any other points. We are making a plea on behalf of the people who need our help. I am sure that we all care for the people in our communities who need help.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: I should like to pay my respects on the death of Robert Adley. As a railway enthusiast all my life, I regarded him as a doyen of the railway world. As well as the loss to his family and the House, he will be a great loss to the railway industry at a time when people with his knowledge have never been more needed.
  I do not want to repeat what has been said by other hon. Members. When Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister, I remember her saying that there was no such thing as community. I am pleased that the hon. Members for Rochford (Dr. Clark) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) have shown that she was wrong in this, as she was in so many other things. I hope that this debate will be a precursor to debates that will save post offices. Much has been said about the deprivation of pensioners and so on, but the real issue is the loss of sub-post offices in rural areas. That is the most important aspect of the matter.
  Perhaps I have been fortunate in my life, in that I have lived in many areas where there were post offices. I have lived in rural, semi-rural and extremely rural districts—I have seen it all. I have always been struck by the fact that, the more rural an area, the more important the sub-post office. I must declare a slight interest because, in my younger days, I had aspirations to own and run a sub-post office. It seemed to be an admirable way to serve society. Although I imagine that it would not be profitable, it would be a worthwhile life.
  Although my constituency is mainly urban, some sections are semi-rural. The loss of post offices in my constituency would diminish the quality of life for the people who live there. The village where I live, which is not in my constituency, is a good example of the problem. If there were no post office in my village, people would need to take a bus ride costing £1·07 each way into Durham city to get to a post office—the bus service runs hourly. I am talking not simply about pensioners but about disabled people, unemployed people—there are many of them in my part of the world—and young mothers with children, who greatly appreciate and rely entirely on the post office for many things.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred to post offices in business. Post offices often provide services that are only marginally profitable. Such services would not be acceptable as a business in their own right. A post office in

  1027
  my village sells wool—it is the only place that does—and provides a clothes cleaning service. Those are valuable services.
  There is nothing new about the threat to close sub-post offices. To my knowledge, the same threat has been made for the past five or six years. There were rumours that sub-post offices would be drastically cut because of the expenditure involved but they were retracted. However, they continue to come back in different guises. I am sure that Conservative Members represent more rural communities than Labour Members. We represent many towns and cities.
  The Post Office has operated a wonderful service for more than 100 years, and it is now more vital than ever for old people to have a post office service close at hand. In years ahead, a larger percentage of the population will be old; moreover, they will be living even longer. Some people do not live within 10 miles of a bank—not just those living in the back of beyond; bank branches are now closing at a fair rate of knots, as are some building society offices.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) represents a constituency adjoining mine. Although, as a Whip, he cannot speak in the debate, in many ways he could make a better speech than any of us, given that his constituency contains remote villages without good bus services. It is vital for all hon. Members affected by the proposals to listen to what their constituents have to say, and to impress their views on the Government.
  I am always very wary of the "balance the books" mentality. It is all very well to say that excessive expenditure is at the root of a problem, and that specific action can be taken to solve it; it is all a bit like the oxo game—having dealt with one square, we find that there are eight more, each of which affects the one adjoining it.
  The Government may hope to obtain short-term relief in the form of savings on the cost of benefits, but the long-term deprivation and the social costs involved could far outweigh any savings. Not many hon. Members are present tonight, but I hope that those who are present will try to persuade their colleagues of the importance of retaining what is perhaps the most important service enjoyed by villages, semi-rural areas and, often, urban areas.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. John Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for introducing the debate, and for allowing others to speak.
  Pensioners currently feel that they are under siege. They face a rise in fuel bills as result of the application of VAT and its extension to standing charges; the pressure on council finances poses a threat to their concessionary fares; crime is escalating in their neighbourhoods, and they feel that they are prisoners in their own homes. Now, on top of all that, their local post offices are threatened. They are being pressurised to leave a system that they have known for many years, and to pay money into their bank accounts. Of course that should be an option, but it should not be pressed to the extent that it has been, to the detriment of many post offices.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have cited many reasons to oppose the Government's plans, but there are others. It has been pointed out that bank branches are
  1028
  far less accessible than local post offices; that trend is increasing as the main banks close many of their outlying branches in a process that they describe as rationalisation. "Closure" would be a better description. Many pensioners will find it even more difficult to reach their branches if their concessionary bus passes are taken away.
  The weight of correspondence received by hon. Members illustrates the difference between the relationship of banks with their customers and that of post offices with theirs. Does anyone seriously imagine that the banks could have mounted the campaign mounted by sub-postmasters in defence of their system? Pensioners clearly appreciate that—if, that is, they have an account at all. Yesterday, a parliamentary written answer revealed that 30 per cent. of those in receipt of benefit have no bank account. Indeed, I doubt whether many banks would be keen on such accounts: they seem to be putting great pressure on small account holders, and—as has been said—imposing charges.
  We know the worry caused to pensioners by official letters from bank managers. There have been some tragic cases of suicide.
  Pensions will be paid either four or 13 weeks in arrears. The pensioners and many others on benefit in my constituency are having trouble living from week to week and from day to day. If they have to budget one month at a time, some will be able to do so, but for a considerable number that will be a major burden and pressure.
  For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will admit that the Government have been found out and will give in on the forms with good grace. I hope that they will scrap the experiment and tonight give a message of good news to pensioners and their friends, the postmasters.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Boyce: Like other speakers, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for tonight's debate, and all hon. Members who have spoken in it. It has been a constructive debate; I think that the House performs at its best when we listen to other speakers. I am as guilty as anyone of baying and braying across the Chamber, but it has been extremely edifying to sit quietly and listen to other hon. Members make their speeches.
  The debate is not about right and left, but about right and wrong. The proposals are out of order and wrong. They benefit nobody except the Exchequer. Therefore, the Government's proper role of looking after people—certainly as they become older—is being denied.
  I do not know who first raised the matter in the House. Before last Thursday, I received letters from pensioners in my constituency. Some of them expressed anger, some frustration and others total disbelief at the proposal. I wrote back to them saying that I would support their campaign to keep open the sub-post offices where they collected their pensions. My letter was fairly standard because one cannot say much more than that one will or will not support the campaign.
  Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) asked the Prime Minister a question:
  "Is my right hon. Friend receiving letters, as I am, from pensioners and others receiving benefit who are concerned in case that benefit should be paid exclusively into banks and building societies? Will he confirm that benefit will continue to be available from post offices and sub-post offices, thus giving the customers a choice in line with Conservative policy?"

  1029
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "This is a matter on which concern is raised from time to time. We have made no proposals to make those changes. If we had any firm proposals to make those changes, we would bring them before the House."—[Official Report 6 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 283.]
  I was immediately relieved and, by telephone, arranged for the standard letter to be altered, because letters were still arriving for me. I changed the standard letter to say that the Prime Minster had given an assurance that the House would debate the matter before the changes took place. As it is not a right and left issue, but a right and wrong issue, I believed that the House would not support the proposal. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Rochford for obtaining that reply from the Prime Minister, with which I was delighted. I am now receiving "thank you" letters for removing some of the anger, frustration and disbelief that people felt.
  More importantly, I believe that today the Prime Minister stood on its head his message of only seven days ago—I shall have to read the Official Report tomorrow to make sure of that. I am extremely worried that the changes are to take place and that people are being encouraged, by stealth or subterfuge, to follow such a course of action. As the hon. Member for Rochford said, the forms are designed in such a manner as to obtain a particular result: "Would you like to win a million pounds—yes or no?" Of course we know the answer. I can remember working in Blackpool as a photographer some years ago. The spiel we gave people was, "Would you like a set of three or the half dozen?" Much the same principle applies here.
  I believe that the Prime Minister today overturned what he said last week. If he did, I will have to tell people that I am sorry about the first letter saying that we needed a campaign, and about the second, saying that the campaign was off; but here is a third letter, saying that the campaign is back on again. That is no way to run a country. If the Government have proposals, let them come clean and bring them before the House. If they do so, the proposal will be defeated by the integrity of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Much of the case has been made already, so I shall be brief. We want the Minister to respond to the points that have been made so that we can intervene in his speech for clarification.
  I was much taken by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). I know his constituency well; it contains Roker Park, the home of Sunderland football club. My father was born in the constituency, which contains a great many terraced houses and all sorts of different areas. My hon. Friend described the sub-post offices in those areas, some of which are urban, some semi-rural and some extremely rural.
  My constituency, too, contains every category of area. To the north lie the outer suburbs of Sheffield—a highly urbanised place with good sub-post office provision. Then there are the semi-rural areas containing former colliery villages with adjoining fields and farms. All sorts of history and traditions are represented in my constituency.
  The very rural parts are in west Derbyshire and the Derbyshire dales, where people have been devastated by
  1030
  some of the changes of recent years—changes which have led to a lack of community transport and many of the other problems that hon. Members have mentioned today.
  My constituency contains a wide variety of political strongholds. It is divided into solid Labour areas and solid Conservative areas. On this issue I have received representations from both, particularly from the rural areas which should be natural Conservative strongholds. The Government should respond to the feelings of people in these areas.
  Sub-postmasters are often important figures in local government, serving on parish and district councils. Amazingly enough, because sub-post offices have become communal centres on which people depend, these sub-postmasters can get elected either as independents or even as representatives of parties which would not do well in normal circumstances in a particular area.
  We should bear that sort of loyalty and community feeling in mind, because it shows that there is something about sub-post offices of such importance that it needs to be preserved. Therefore, we want neither measures that would ruin sub-post offices nor the privatisation which might follow.
  9.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) referred to the number of letters that he has recently received on this subject. We have all received similar postbags. I sometimes ruefully reflect that if it were not for the scaremongering campaigns that occur at various times during the year and that generate large amounts of post, the position of the Post Office might be rather less viable than it is. Members of Parliament perform a valuable function in helping to support the Post Office network.
  I am happy to join with hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on drawing his place in the ballot and choosing this subject for debate. As has been said, he has been fortunate, and we have been fortunate in having an unusually extended debate on the Adjournment. As I was in charge of earlier business—the debate on the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill—I could have filibustered myself by keeping the debate on that Bill going so as to close off the Adjournment debate. I would not have wished to do that because this is an important matter for all our constituents, and it is right that we should debate it.
  The hon. Member has stolen a march on his own Front Bench and anticipated the debate that will be held next Wednesday. We are just a warm-up act, and the star turns will have their opportunity next week. Let us compare the quality of the two debates. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said, the debate has been conducted in an unusual spirit for the House of cool, calm reflection without all the heat of the party battle. I venture to think that our debate will be rather more good tempered and good humoured, and perhaps will generate more light than heat, than that which will be held next Wednesday.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to place on record the Government's views on this important matter. I share opinions on it with hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House. As an individual Member of

  1031
  Parliament, and as a member of the Government, I am particularly well aware of the great value placed on the local post office in smaller rural communities. I have some 35 post offices within my constituency, which has some substantial rural areas. I know the high regard in which they are held by everybody, from pensioners to young mothers, and by all the other groups mentioned by hon. Members.
  I doff my cap in the direction of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and admit that my parents-in-law live in a small rural village in the depths of Cornwall, perhaps even more remote than the villages in his constituency because they live on the Lizard peninsula. I can also tell him that they are Liberal voters, but I have never held that against them, and even on that account I would not wish to close their local post office.
  We all understand that the local post office is not just somewhere to buy stamps or collect pensions. As many hon. Members have said, it is often the focal point of the community. I hardly ever use a bank because I regularly cash cheques here in the post office of the House of Commons, which is open at much more user-friendly hours than any bank. Nobody can doubt our commitment, both collectively as a Government and individually as Members of Parliament, to this important national institution.
  The Government's commitment to a nation-wide network of post offices is unequivocal. Hon. Members have asked me to place on record a commitment that we will maintain a viable national network of post offices. I am happy to do that. In so doing, I am not saying anything that the House will not have heard before. We wrote that commitment into our manifesto. None of the other parties did so. That is not to impute that they are not as committed to that aim as we are, but we thought it was useful and valuable to make that commitment during the election campaign. When my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the review of the future structure and organisation of the Post Office last July, he made it clear that that commitment was not negotiable, and I have great pleasure in repeating it this evening.
  I should like to explode two myths about the Post Office which often surface to call that commitment into question. The first myth is that the Post Office is in steep and inexorable decline, and the second is that the Government are gradually destroying the viability of post offices by reducing the amount of business that is put their way. I am glad to be able to tell the House that there is no truth in either of those tales. The Post Office is one of a rare breed: it is a popular and relatively successful nationalised industry. Whether it could be even more successful in the private sector is another issue which I may touch on later in the debate.
  As Government, we aim to open up new opportunities for the Post Office in order to support the viability of an institution to which we are all committed. The Royal Mail is flourishing today as never before, and is widely recognised as one of the best postal services in the world. Over the past decade, Post Office Counters Ltd. has been consistently profitable, with a growing turnover and rising
  1032

  standards of customer services. Rumours of its demise are greatly exaggerated and do not accord with the historical trend.
  How have the misunderstandings that have been alluded to in the debate come about? As with other economic developments, we always hear about the bad news, but rarely about the steady improvements and the winning of new business. As so often with the media, bad news is good news and good news is no news. We hear not about steady improvements but about closures and other deteriorations. I do not know why that happens, but there have been a number of reflections on the subject recently as a result of some remarks by Martyn Lewis.
  There has been a steady improvement in the Post Office, and new business has been won. The effect of the automated credit transfer system, which gave rise to the debate, is a case in point. There was a time when the only way in which to collect a state pension or other state benefit was over the post office counter. Then, in 1982, we introduced the option of having pensions or child benefits paid directly into personal bank or building society accounts. Nearly half of new pensioners now choose that option, but when it was first introduced it was widely feared that it heralded the beginning of the end for the Post Office. That fear was widely expressed in the House at the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark)—or was it my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)?—mentioned the diversification of post office services into other shops in the rural community. That development too gave rise to the claim that it heralded the end of the Post Office.
  In fact, by a combination of options that have been introduced over the years, we have improved the delivery of services to the consumer. That may not necessarily involve the use of the post office or the sub-post office, but the consequence has not been the disappearance of post offices, especially rural sub-post offices, as an important part of local communities. In spite of the gradually increasing proportion of business going to banks and building societies, the total volume of DSS business, and hence of Government business in total, transacted through post offices has increased. The share of the pie may be smaller, but as the pie itself is bigger, the Post Office has not lost out.
  The hon. Member for Western Isles mentioned the citizens charter in his opening speech. In the citizens charter we made it clear that we would extend the range of choice open to recipients of other benefits by giving them the option of having their benefits paid into bank or building society accounts. Last November the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that he would encourage more people to use that method of payment, which is cheaper to administer than post office order books, and also more secure.
  It is true that there is a cost attached to different methods of payment, and in so far as we use less efficient or more costly systems of payment, the sums expended on those are not available to be spent in many other socially useful ways. Although I am saying this in a neutral way, we ought to consider as a background to this debate what the costs are.
  The total cost to the DSS of paying child benefit by post office order book is currently nearly twice as high as the cost of paying it through ACT. With pensions, it is about 10 times as high. If the Post Office payment system were to be automated, the difference in cost would be considerably

  1033
  smaller. The point was made in the course of the debate, I think by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, that Mr. Cockburn's recent remarks about improvements in service delivery through post offices could reduce costs without reducing the degree of usage of the post office. I happily tell him this evening that we are—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Mr. Hamilton: I happily tell the hon. Gentleman that of course we will consider that, and any other proposal which has the effect of improving the service delivery to consumers and making it more efficient, because those efficiency savings can be passed on to the community in a variety of other valuable ways. It cannot be right for us to close our eyes to these opportunities, because it is opportunities that we are talking about.
  I fully understand the nature of the fears that have been expressed in this debate, and I want to deal with them this evening.
  Mr. Macdonald: The Minister took up the reference to the citizens charter. Does he accept that, as a matter of principle, full information about the choices available to pensioners should be given to them; that, as a matter of principle, it should be as easy for them to choose one option as to choose any other? There should be a level playing field available to pensioners when these options are presented to them.
  Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the forms to which he referred in some detail in the course of his speech are part of a trial which the Department of Social Security has been engaged in in an attempt to test the popularity of the different methods of payment. I have heard the criticisms that he and other hon. Members have made, and the Secretary of State for Social Security will, of course, in evaluating the response to the different forms which have been issued, bear all those criticisms in mind.
  It is not for me, as a Department of Trade and Industry Minister, to second-guess what my right hon. Friend in the DSS will say in due course, because the evaluation exercise has not yet been completed. But the fears that have been expressed by hon. Members this evening will, of course, form the backdrop to the evaluation, along with all the other responses that are received.
  Mr. Olner: A few moments ago the Minister used the word "encourage". I get the impression that the Secretary of State for Social Security is doing more than encourage people with market testing and making people choose between one form of payment and another. People throughout the country can see that they are being coerced, not encouraged, to have their benefits paid through ACT or on a monthly basis. It is time that the Government came clean about this. This is why the pensioners are fearful of what is going on.
  Mr. Hamilton: I cannot say any more than I have said already. I can only repeat that this is a trial. Each form has been issued to about 8,000 people, I believe. When the responses have been evaluated, the Department will be able to see the popularity of each option. Of course, if there is a design flaw in the forms and that view is accepted by the Department, that will form the backdrop to the decision. I am not in a position this evening to agree with
  1034
  hon. Members who have expressed their fears on this subject in the House and elsewhere, but I can say that their criticisms have been heard.
  Dr. Michael Clark: It gives me no pleasure to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I shall do so for a second. My hon. Friend said that the forms were designed to test the popularity of different methods of payment of benefits and of pensions. I take issue with him on that. The forms are not designed to test the popularity of different methods of payment. If they were, we should have the level playing field that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) mentioned. The forms are designed to discover how effectively the wool can be pulled over the eyes of those who receive pensions and benefits. They have nothing to do with the popularity of the form of payment.
  Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Western Isles have explained the nature of the three forms, each of which I have here this evening. Their comments have been heard. I have made my own comments and I have explained the reason for the issuing of the forms. I have also explained that, when the results are complete, the Department of Social Security will take a view on the basis of everything that has been said as part of the whole debate on the matter.
  Mr. David Harris: I apologise for not having been here for most of the debate; I had another engagement. I entirely agree with the two points just made. No one in the House believes more fervently in freedom of choice than my hon. Friend the Minister. However, to test what people want, they must be told that they can continue to receive their benefits through post offices. I suspect that in many cases there are advantages for them in doing so, certainly in a remote rural constituency such as mine. Surely, if there is to be proper market testing, we must tell people that it is not a question of their having to be paid through the banks and building societies, but that there is also the option of their continuing to be paid through sub-post offices, especially village sub-post offices. That is the only fair way to test this.
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not accept that the third form mentioned, which seems to have generated the most controversy, precludes the use of post offices from the delivery of the service. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's words to the attention of my mother-in-law, who is one of his constituents. Whether the consequence will be that she votes for him at the next election, I cannot say.
  Mr. Tyler: The Minister said just now that he could not second-guess the views of his colleagues in the Department of Social Security and we understand that. I wonder whether he will be quite so specific on the next point. A week ago, the Prime Minister appeared to say unequivocally that the Government were not committed to pressurising people towards the ACT method with which we are all concerned this evening. However, this afternoon, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), he appeared to be ambivalent; he appeared to equivocate. The Minister mentioned the political allegiance of his mother-in-law. For her benefit, for my benefit and for the benefit of the House, will the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister was correct last week or whether he was correct this afternoon? I do not

  1035
  expect him to answer on behalf of the Department of Social Security, but I am sure that he has been fully briefed this evening on the views of No. 10.
  Mr. Hamilton: Beauty, like ambivalence, is in the eye of the beholder. All I can say is that the Government are perfectly consistent at all times. I do not have here the words that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister uttered in the House this afternoon. I heard them at the time, but I admit that I cannot now remember exactly what he said. All I can say is that, whatever words were used in the House this afternoon, the commitment is exactly the same as that given last week.
  I was making a point about the effects of ACT on the Post Office system and on its connection with the diversification of Post Office services. As with all other businesses, some lines of work will increase while others decline. New opportunities are opening for the Post Office which should bolster its position. One promising prospect, for example, could be the retailing of the national lottery. We do not yet know whether the Post Office will win a contract to sell lottery tickets, but we have extended its statutory powers so that it will be able to bid for the contract. Who knows how much business that could generate if the Post Office were successful? It could be an important element in the underpinning of the Post Office network throughout the country. Of course, I am not the Secretary of State for National Heritage. If only I were Prime Minister, it would be much more convenient, and I could answer all the points made in the debate. Perhaps I will be, one day.
  Mr. Boyce: The way the hon. Member is carrying on, upsetting most of his Back Bench colleagues, it is hardly likely. I want to take up the point about post offices selling lottery tickets. That is a good proposal, but if the Government have taken away people's rights to draw their pensions at the post office, the purpose of this debate is defeated. The debate is about pensioners drawing pensions from post offices. Any additional business for post offices is a good thing, but the debate is not about that.
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman poses a hypothesis. It is not Government policy to remove the right of pensioners to receive their pensions from the post office. As was said by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, the Prime Minister said last week that our policy was to encourage people to receive benefits through their accounts, while maintaining a viable network of post office outlets. So the two are not necessarily inconsistent. As was written in our manifesto, we are absolutely committed to the maintenance of a viable network of post offices throughout the country.
  To return to the forms which have been sent out, I am well aware of the concern that has been expressed about the recent trial. It has been noticed in ministerial postbags as well. But I want to stress that the trial is only a trial and is merely to test the impact of different methods of presentation. I have heard the criticisms that my hon. Friends and others have made this evening, but the Department of Social Security is looking at ways of encouraging the take-up of automated credit transfer on a voluntary basis.
  Mr. Peter Luff rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: I would like to continue, if I may, because, as a result of willingly taking interventions, I am falling behind with my speech and I shall be unable to answer, even in three quarters of an hour, all the points made in the debate, which I am anxious to do.
  Redesign of some of the forms is one of the ways being considered. None of the forms is intended to deprive benefit recipients of the option of being paid through the post office. I understand that all three forms indicated that a choice of payent methods was available, but I have heard the criticisms made by my hon. Friends, in particular, about the clarity of the way in which a particular choice was put before people. I can assure my hon. Friends that those points will be read with great care by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in the morning.
  The hon. Member for Western Isles asked me for two commitments. He asked if the Government would retract their policy to encourage pensioners to use ACT. I am afraid that I cannot give him the commitment that he sought. We have been encouraging the take-up of ACT for 10 years and we shall continue to do so. I have explained the cost background and the benefits that will flow from making the system more efficient.
  The hon. Member also asked me if the test trial forms would be shredded and new ones produced with "comprehensive and unbiased" information. The management of the trial is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I repeat the point that I have just made. It is no more than a test, and my right hon. Friend needs to assess the results before he can decide how to redesign the forms. No doubt he will take account of that point before making any decision in that respect.
  Although we have a viable system of post offices around the country, particularly in rural areas, I realise that this particular claim may sound rather hollow to those living in areas which have lost their local post offices in recent years. Although that is sad, it is not something that is a feature of the 1990s or of Conservative Governments. In the past five years, the number of post offices has fallen by 1,151, but under the Labour Government a similar fall—of 1,190 —occurred between 1974 and 1979. The figures are almost identical. Between 1965 and 1970, 541 post offices were closed.
  The trend of post office closure has gone on for some time and at the end of each year there are usually a smaller number of post offices than there were at the beginning of it. If that trend continued, however, one would cease to have a viable national network. Many of the arguments that have been put forward today with such vigour and eloquence could equally have been made at any time in the past 30 years, given the steady decline in the number of post offices.
  A large networked organisation such as Post Office Counters Ltd. is generally successful, but some individual post offices are struggling. Demographic changes and changes in shopping patterns mean that in certain areas the viability of post offices grows weaker. Rural offices, in particular, are vulnerable to those changes as traditional village life changes and declines. I deplore that because I live in a small village and I particularly value its community life.
  Mr. Harris: Surely we should be looking at new ways in which to attract extra business to post offices. My hon. Friend has already mentioned, quite properly, the

  1037
  possibility of their selling lottery tickets, but we should ease the restrictions and inhibitions on post offices so that they can do other business. Another feature of rural areas —it is certainly true of mine, as it no doubt is of my hon. Friend's constituency—is that the sub-branches of the banks are closing down. Why not lift the inhibitions from sub-post offices so that they can do a deal with the banks to act as their agents? That would encourage the viability of those post offices. We must not be defeatist about village post offices.
  Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is the value of the Post Office review, which is under way at the moment. That review has led to exactly the same type of scaremongering as that which has given rise to the campaign mentioned in the debate. Because the Government do not want to set parameters on the general review of opportunities open to the Post Office, we could be asked to rule out various options. Eventually, we would end up with a real dog's breakfast.
  As in so many areas, nationalisation has imposed restrictions on the development of an important industry. If those restrictions were removed, it could offer new life to a great national institution. The post office review will certainly consider all the options, such as those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). I hope that that review will breathe new life into the post office system.
  The Post Office is very keen to be released from the bonds and shackles of state control. Consequently, it would be wrong if we dismissed any options. I regret, therefore, the timidity of those who have poured scorn on the Post Office review and have caused many people to worry unduly about its outcome.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am reluctant to do so because the hon. Gentleman was not here for much of the debate and I want to respond to those hon. Members who have been present throughout.
  It is always regrettable when a local post office has to close, but I am pleased to say that for an increasing number of smaller offices salvation has been found in the introduction of community post offices.
  Offices are open on a part-time basis, according to the level of business transacted. The Post Office introduced that programme in 1988 and it has proved successful in keeping a local service going which might otherwise have been withdrawn following the retirement of the existing sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress. That is a current problem. There are many instances where a sub-postmaster retires and the post office cannot find a replacement. Indeed, it is a serious problem in some rural areas.
  I do not know if it is a problem in the Western Isles, where there are 85 post offices. As the hon. Member for that constituency said eloquently in his speech, the local post office is the most widespread meeting point and community institution in that scattered area. Finding a successor to the postmaster or postmistress is a serious problem in some parts of the country.
  Hon. Members are familiar with some of the more colourful examples of community offices mentioned in recent debates about the rural network. They illustrate the benefits of flexibility and the opportunity to develop that
  1038
  has arisen in recent years. Community post offices have opened in pubs, churches, even garden sheds and front rooms. That trend would not have been thinkable prior to the developments of recent years.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) that if it were Government policy to close rural sub-post offices it would be a foolish policy. That is not our policy. Curiously enough, there has been much community of interest and agreement in the debate, and it has in many ways been similar to the previous debate in which I starred—[Interruption.] I was searching for the right word, which sometimes eludes me.
  There is a commitment to achievement of the same objective. The means by which we would get there may be different, but our objective is the same. We have affirmed our commitment to the nationwide network of post offices, including the rural network.
  The fact that Government business transacted through post offices has not decreased but increased in each of the last few years is a demonstrable illustration of the Government's commitment to the policy that we declared in our manifesto. The Post Office is making strenuous efforts, in particular in co-operation with the Rural Development Commission, to keep small rural post offices open, particularly in areas where changing shopping patterns have been threatening their viability.
  As I come to the question of the Post Office review, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, who dealt with the matter in the context of his extremely scattered constituency, which I know well as I spent some time there in a by-election not long ago—[Interruption.] In the general election I was otherwise engaged in my own constituency. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), with his usual percipience, spotted why my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley lost the by-election but won the general election.
  I appreciate that his constituency is scattered and that the importance of the local post office in Ribble Valley is not to be understated. The Post Office review gives great opportunity, as my hon. Friend recognised, for scattered rural areas of that kind. I cannot tonight state when our decisions will be made public because no decisions have yet been made, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that when we have something to say on the matter it will be announced to the House. In the meantime, I assure everybody that the review is being undertaken with no preconceptions as to its outcome and that we are looking at both public and private sector options.
  It has been said tonight that the privatisation of the Post Office might lead to large numbers of post office closures. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said that. Although no decisions have been made—so speculation about the effect of privatisation would be idle—I believe that the impact of greater flexibility to which loosening the bonds of state control has given rise in other formerly nationalised industries would be to the benefit of the Post Office and would underpin the network to which we are all committed.
  That is why I regret the confusion that has been created in recent times over the impact of ACT and the possible impact of privatisation. Those two issues ought to be considered separately, because our policy of encouraging ACT on a voluntary basis has been in place for some time—for 10 years or so—and we have yet to decide whether to privatise part or all of the Post Office. Whatever the outcome of the review, our commitment to a nationwide

  1039
  network of post offices will not be compromised. There are ways to protect the network, whether it be in the public or the private sector, and also whatever services the Post Office provides.
  I remind hon. Members, as did the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) in his speech, that 19,000 of the 20,000 post offices are already in the private sector, because all sub-post offices are run by individual entrepreneurs. They contract for their services with the Post Office, but the premises and the business itself are firmly in the private sector. That has been a great strength of the system.
  The Post Office's programme of converting Crown offices to agency status has been successful in improving efficiency, with Post Office services having been transferred to the private sector. There is no inconsistency at all between the private sector option and the provision of services that hitherto were the responsibility of a nationalised institution. What matters is the Government's commitment to those services being available on a widespread and viable basis throughout the country. I am happy yet again to reaffirm that commitment.
  Mr. Morley: There is still a great risk in privatising the core of a service such as the Post Office, which is in part publicly controlled but which, of course, has a private interest element—the contracting out of sub-post offices. I draw the Minister's attention to the privatisation of the electricity boards. Has he thought about the number of showrooms that have been closed as the electricity companies seek to maximise their revenue? We believe that, as well as having a duty to make a profit, the Post Office should provide a public service.
  Mr. Hamilton: It is a little far-fetched to compare electricity showrooms with post offices. I do not therefore intend to respond to the hon. Gentleman's point, as only a couple of minutes are left to me.
  1040
  We are considering in our review whether there are ways of organising all or part of Post Office business in such a way as to enable further gains to be made and the customer to have even better services while safeguarding our nationwide network commitment and our universal mail service obligation. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made it crystal clear—there was no ambivalence or ambiguity about it—that the two unbreakable commitments on the basis of which our Post Office review is predicated are, first, that a nationwide network of post offices and a universal postal delivery service at a uniform tariff will be preserved and, secondly, that our universal mail service obligation, whatever the outcome of the review, will be as it is now.
  We are, however, seeking to improve efficiency in order to reduce costs. The consequence will be that money which is now wasted can be channelled into other more productive and socially useful services. That must be the objective and aim of us all in the debate. Nobody benefits from waste. We must seek to use scarce resources in ways that are most productive and that give the greatest satisfaction to consumers. That, of course, is the rationale for the existence of any business. We believe in striving constantly for improvements. If there is a way to improve the current arrangements, whether through privatisation or in any other way, we shall not shrink from making appropriate changes.
  I hope that during this valuable and interesting debate I have been able to allay the fears of at least some hon. Members, though the experience of many years in politics inclines me to believe that such optimism is usually misplaced. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Western Isles and to all those who have participated in the debate for this opportunity to run over issues which are of such concern to our constituents. I look forward to seeing act 2 on Wednesday, when the ringmaster of the drama, as on this occasion, will be the hon. Member for Jarrow. On that—
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT

  School Leavers
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will last for each year since 1988 the number of pupils in Greater London reaching the minimum school leaving age and the number who entered employment directly, entered a youth training scheme on leaving school, returned for a further period at school, or entered a further education college; and if she will provide such estimates as are available for the same figures for 1993.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is compiled by United Kingdom heads of careers services on behalf of the careers service. It is given in the table. This information is not yet available for 1992 and 1993. Information for 1988 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Numbers of pupils leaving secondary school at minimum school leaving age in inner and outer London and their destinations for the years 1989–91

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Full-time education

  32,790

  31,800

  38,200

  Youth training1

  4,050

  3,070

  2,920

  Employment

  12,550

  9,030

  4,520

  Not in any2

  3,180

  4,300

  6,260

  Unknown3

  8,490

  6,130

  6,050

  Total

  60,620

  54,160

  57,950

  Source: School Leavers' Destinations Survey.

  Figures rounded to nearest 10.

  1 Including those on YT with employed status and those using training credits.

  2 May be unemployed or not available for work for any of a wide range of reasons.

  3 Those who failed to let the careers service or school know what they were doing and who failed to respond to at least two attempts at follow-up by the careers office.

EDUCATION

  Infant Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many four-year-olds were in classes in infant schools in England, excluding four-year-olds in nursery classes of infant schools or in nursery schools in 1987 and 1991; and what percentage this was of the age group.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the table.
  526

  Pupils aged 4 attending infant classes in maintained infant schools in England.

  Position as at January each year.

  Number of pupils aged four1

  As a percentage of the four year old population2

  1987

  71,025

  18

  1991

  76,703

  18

  1 Ages as at previous 31 August—excluding the rising fives who by January will have reached the age of five.

  2 Based on the estimated four-year-old population as at previous 31 August—again excluding the rising fives.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) when he intends to complete his consideration of the responses to his consultation letter on the sale of school playing fields;

  (2) if he will publish a full list of the organisations and individuals to whom his consultation letter on the sale of school playing fields was sent, the date on which the letter was sent to each organisation and individual and the date on which a response from each organisation and individual was received by his Department; and if he will place copies of each response in the Library;

  (3) how many organisations have not responded to his consultation letter on the sale of school playing fields; what action he has taken to pursue those organisations for responses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend expects to inform local education authorities and others of his conclusions arising from this exercise shortly.

  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, wrote to the local authority associations on 19 December 1991 asking for their comments on his proposed letter to chief education officers by 28 February 1992. Copies of the consultation letter were also sent on 20 December 1991 to the Sports Council, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the National Playing Fields Association and the regional councils for sport and recreation for information.

  Following is a list of the bodies which commented on the consultation letter and the dates of their replies:

  Date

  Association of District Councils

  26 February 1992

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  February 1992

  Association of County Councils

  February 1992

  Association of London Authorities

  24 February 1992

  The Sports Council

  28 February 1992

  National Playing Fields Association

  5 March 1992

  The Central Council of Physical Recreation

  16 January 1992

  Chiltern District Council

  13 February 1992

  Cornwall County Council

  25 February 1992

  Dorset County Council

  26 February 1992

  ACRE: The Rural Communities Charity

  28 February 1992

  Somerset County Council

  4 March 1992

  It is not our normal practice to place responses to consultations in the Library.

  No response was received from the London Boroughs Association. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble wrote to the chairman of the association, on 19 December 1991, and a further copy of his letter was sent

  527
  to the association on 6 February 1992. Officials subsequently telephoned the association to ask whether a response would be forthcoming; a representative confirmed that the association did not intend to respond.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a full list of those local education authorities which have actively demonstrated that, in considering whether to retain playing fields released by a school proposed for closure, they have considered whether such playing fields should be retained to make up shortfalls at a neighbouring school, the method by which such consideration has been demonstrated, the total number of schools that have been subject to such consideration, the total number of schools at which the playing field has subsequently been released and the total number of schools at which the playing field has subsequently been retained.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not available. Local education authorities are not required to provide such information when submitting proposals for school closure to my right hon. Friend.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 April to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman),Official Report, column 508, if the representations he has received supporting the need to use the tax system to help fulfil the Government's Rio commitment have (a) specifically supported the use of value added tax as the instrument to do so, (b) supported the imposition of VAT on standing charges or (c) proposed alternative ways of using the tax system in this regard.

  Sir John Cope
  A number of representations my right hon. Friend received specifically supported the use of VAT as an instrument to help fulfil the United Kingdom's Rio commitment. For example, the Friends of the Earth said in its Budget briefing"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."
  Standing charges were not mentioned in any representations, and alternative ways of using the tax system were proposed in some of the representations received.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to impose value added tax on newspapers, periodicals, books or other publications; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. Friend's plans for VAT changes are set out in the Budget and the Finance (No. 2) Bill and do not extend VAT in this area.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Inland Revenue rules regarding taxation on those resident in the United Kingdom for more than 183 days a year; and what steps are being taken to deal with evasion.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under section 336 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, an individual who is present 528
  in the United Kingdom for 183 days or more in a tax year is treated as resident for tax purposes for that year. The Inland Revenue reviews the residence status of individuals, where appropriate, as part of its general compliance responsibilities.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's policy in respect of companies cutting basic pay in order to increase the tax-free element through profit-related pay.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government's purpose in introducing tax relief for profit-related pay—PRP—was to encourage flexibility in pay determination arrangements. The tax relief, subject to certain limits, is available only for PRP schemes which satisfy certain legislative requirements. Responsibility for the detailed terms of specific employment contracts rests with the parties themselves.

  Unitary Taxation
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has received from United States Treasury Secretary Bentsen to his representations about unitary taxation.

  Mr. Lamont
  United States Secretary Bentsen has explained the United States Adminstration's position. He and his colleagues recognise the importance the British Government attach to this issue, the strength of feeling in the United Kingdom and the risk of retaliatory action by the United Kingdom if a satisfactory solution is not forthcoming. He has assured me that the Administration are very keen to find a solution to this problem that is acceptable. I have said that the Government are ready to discuss how an acceptable solution could best be achieved. But I have informed him that the Government will have to take retaliatory measures in relation to United States based companies if there is not a satisfactory resolution of the problem of the internationally opposed unitary tax on foreign-owned companies in California by the end of this year. Meanwhile, I have instructed the Inland Revenue to obtain information from California-based companies in the United Kingdom on the probable impact of such retaliatory measures.

ENVIRONMENT

  Low Frequency Noise
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which year his Department first became aware of the hum noise complaint relating to low frequency noise; if he will make a statement concerning the action by his Department since that time to investigate this complaint: and what results were obtained.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department first became aware of the problem of low frequency noise in the late 1970s. The independent noise review conducted for my Department in 1990 observed that this was a difficult area in terms of measurement, individual sensitivity and identification of sources. It recommended full support for the programme of research being conducted for the Department by the Building Research Establishment which is due to be completed early next year. Complaints about low
  529
  frequency noise are investigated by local authorities under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in the same way as other noise complaints.

  Fanfare for a New World
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to account for the losses incurred by the Merseyside development corporation in subsidising the Fanfare for a New World concert.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has asked Merseyside development corporation's auditors, in their examination of the accounts for last year, to look specifically at the issue of the corporation's sponsorship of the concert; we await the outcome of this examination.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to restructure the Merseyside development corporation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1991 a financial management and policy review—FMPR—was carried out at Merseyside development corporation, as part of the Department's role in sponsoring non-departmental public bodies. The FMPR was based on four studies covering management, staffing, audit and pay and conditions. As the FMPR resulted in changes within the MDC's structure, there are no further proposals for any more changes.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish an audit of the finances of the Merseyside development corporation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Merseyside development corporation is subject to an annual audit by independent external auditors, appointed by the Secretary of State. The auditors' report is published in the corporation's annual report. A full copy of the financial statements is available from the corporation on request.

  New Housing
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new housing starts there were for the first three months of 1993 and for the corresponding period in 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  Provisional figures show that there were 43,900 housebuilding starts in Great Britain during the first three months of 1993 compared with 41,100 starts during the corresponding period of 1992.

  This increase is an expression of growing confidence by the building industry in the market for new houses. Taken with recent evidence of rising house prices and increased activity by estate agents, there are now signs of a recovery in the housing market.

  Association of Environmental Consultants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received from the Association of Environmental Consultants on its new code of practice.

  Mr. Maclean
  My officials have received a copy of the code of practice. I welcome this example of self-regulation by a group of prominent companies and I am sure that it will help to encourage public confidence in their work.

  Ozone Levels
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when and where World Health Organisation air quality guidelines for ozone levels have been exceeded since 1987.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 May 1993]: There are two World Health Organisation Guidelines for the protection of human health, a one-hour guideline of 76–100ppb and an eight-hour guideline of 50ppb. There are two guidelines for the protection of plants and crops, a daily mean of 33ppb and a growing season mean of 30ppb.

  Ozone monitoring has been carried out since 1987 at 16 United Kingdom sites in the Department's network. Between 1987 and 1991 the guidelines were exceeded on at least one occasion at each site. Ozone levels in the United Kingdom are, however, among the lowest in Europe.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response the Government have made to the proposals for policy objectives on affordable rented housing put forward by the Churches National Housing Coalition in its document circulated to hon. Members.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 10 May 1993]: The Government have noted with interest the points made by the Churches National Housing Coalition. The coalition's proposals concerned supply and choice of housing; homelessness and targeting resources. In all these areas we are already making significant progress.

  The Government's aim is to ensure that a decent home is within the reach of every family.

  We have taken steps to increase the supply of low-cost housing where it is needed. The housing market measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement mean that the public resources available to housing associations, the main providers of new social housing, increased from £935 million in 1989–90 to £1·8 billion in 1993–94, making some 54,500 new homes available. In addition, the temporary relaxation of the rules governing local authority receipts, for the period November 1992 to December 1993, gives local authorities greatly increased spending power for projects such as the renovation of their housing stock.

  Greater choice and efficiency are key elements of Government policy. We have taken measures to encourage the revival of the private rented sector; to give public sector tenants greater control over the management of their homes; to encourage more efficient management in the social sector; as well as promoting home ownership.

  Under the rough sleepers initiative, £96 million was made available from 1990–91 to 1992–93 to provide additional hostel and longer-term accommodation in central London, where the problem is most acute. A further £86 million is available over three financial years, from April 1993–94 to 1995–96 build on the success of this initiative.

  We believe that it is a more efficient use of resources to target subsidy towards people rather than simply into "bricks and mortar", so that the public subsidy reaches those individuals who need it most. Our policies on spending in the social sector reflect that.
  531
  In addition, home ownership continues to hold a central place in our housing policy. The right to buy for council housing, as well as our rent-to-mortgages proposals; cash incentive schemes to enable public sector tenants to move out into owner-occupation; and shared ownership schemes are all important parts of our commitment to help those who want to own their own homes to do so.

  River Safety
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to publish an account of progress in the implementation of recommendations made after major disasters recommended in the Hayes report on river safety.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 11 May 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport gave on 11 May, Official Report, column 380.

  Environmental Damage
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he is making of the legal liability resulting from transboundary environmental damage.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 May 1993]: This matter is considered whenever it is raised in the development, application or revision of the relevant international environmental legal instruments.

  Crown Estate Commissioners
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will use the next appropriate legislative opportunity to give the Crown Estate Commissioners a statutory duty to further the conservation of the terrestrial and maritime environment.

  Mr. Lamont
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to introduce such legislation.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Crown Estate Commissioners are subject to the environmental provisions of section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968; and whether those provisions extend to their functions below the low water mark.

  Mr. Lamont
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Crown Estate Commissioners' environmental and conservation policy applies the provisions of section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 to their ownership both of land and of the sea bed below the low water mark.

SCOTLAND

  Council Tax
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the overstepping of maximum charges for bands in the transitional reduction scheme of the council tax; and what proposals he has to prevent such occurrence.

  Mr. Lang
  I have received a number of representations from MPs and members of the public about the difference 532
  between the actual council tax, set by local authorities, and the adjusted council tax used by local authorities to calculate entitlement to transitional reduction.

  The sole purpose of the transitional reduction scheme is to moderate increases in local tax bills arising as a consequence of the change in tax system and it is not intended to protect taxpayers from increases arising for other reasons. The level of adjusted council tax used to determine relief is calculated according to a prescribed formula. This formula takes account of what each local authority might need to spend on services in 1993–94 but makes no allowance for past deficits and assumes a council tax collection level of 98 per cent. Where local authorities budget responsibly and have good records of tax collection, the actual and adjusted taxes should be very close to each other and may be identical. This is the case in a number of areas in Scotland. Where this is not the case, taxpayers may wish to ask their local authority for an explanation.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to waive or curtail the operation of the planning processes relating to planning and development proposals from Highland regional council in respect of work to be carried out in the Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin areas as a result of the building of the Skye bridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans to alter the planning processes in respect of Highland regional council's proposals.

  Scottish Transport Group
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are to privatise the Scottish Transport Group; what estimate of asset proceeds he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The disposal programme covering the undertakings of the Scottish Transport Group was published on 6 February 1990. The major part of this programme, the disposal of the 10 former subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group, has been successfully completed. My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 2 December 1991,Official Report, columns 45–46, gave details of the proceeds from the sale of the Scottish Bus Group. The Scottish Transport Group will be wound up in due course after the disposal of its remaining property assets and the winding up of its pension funds. Estimates of likely proceeds from the remaining assets are commercially confidential.

  Forestry
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, columns 89–90, whether any additional person or persons have attended or are expected to attend any meeting of the forestry review group.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Members of the forestry review group may be represented by alternates from their Departments. No persons other than members or their alternates have attended meetings.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his 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 his estimate of the total at the latest available date.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 May 1993]: The latest available information on the number of people employed offshore in the oil and gas sector in the northern North sea is for September 1991 when it was estimated at between 26,400 and 27,950.

  There are no estimates of oil and gas related employment for onshore workers alone for either 1991 or 1992. The latest information available relating to the number of people employed onshore and offshore in companies with turnover in excess of 80 per cent. related to oil and gas sector is for June 1992. On that basis, the estimate was 82,800, compared to 83,400 in June 1990.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exports to Iran
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has received on the trading activities of Seaconsar Far East Ltd. of Hong Kong in relation to British exports to Iran.

  Mr. Needham
  Information supplied to my Department about the trading activities of companies is treated as commercially confidential.

  Council of Industry Ministers
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Community Council of Industry Ministers held on 4 May.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of European Community Industry Ministers held in Brussels on 4 May.

  The most important item on the agenda was restructuring of the EC steel industry where I underlined the importance of keeping up the momentum of the discussions with industry to ensure that a definitive programme of capacity reductions is in place before the 30 September deadline set by the Industry Council in February. I emphasised that a successful restructuring plan is dependent on strict control of state aids to the industry, a point with which Vice-President Van Miert fully agreed. With support from a number of other member states, I argued for the European Coal and Steel Community levy to be phased out rapidly and the Danish presidency hoped that decisions could be taken by the end of the year.

  The Council agreed in principle to extend the provisions of the seventh directive on aid to the shipbuilding industry to the end of 1994.

  There was discussion of measures to support small and medium enterprises with a decision that a single programme should commence in July this year, subject to agreement on the detail of the text.

  The Commission, at the United Kingdom's instigation, made a presentation of the progress towards accomplishing the tasks set out in the Council resolution on
  534
  administrative simplification agreed during the United Kingdom presidency. The United Kingdom had placed this important topic on the agenda to keep up the momentum of the Commission's work in this area. The Commission's action should help to ensure that burdens on British business are minimised.

  We also tabled a paper, which was supported by a number of other member states, outlining our concern about the damage to the United Kingdom's recycling industry caused by German packaging waste legislation. The Danish presidency hoped that progress could be made at the June Environment Council on the packaging waste directive as a Community solution to some aspects of this problem.

  The Council also held a wide-ranging debate on the link between industrial competitiveness and environmental protection. We consider this link to be important and will continue to work with the Commission and other member states so that the relationship between industrial competitiveness and environmental protection is taken into account when formulating policies.

  BNFL Office, South Korea
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the role of the BNFL office in South Korea; and what reassessment has been undertaken of its role in the context of discussions on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]: It is for BNFL to decide on its commercial representation overseas. The Republic of Korea is a state party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has concluded a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Any business undertaken by BNFL will take place in accordance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the treaty.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the impact on the number of areas in London eligible for assisted status if each London borough were treated as a travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Designating assisted areas depends on the criteria set out in the consultation paper issued in June 1992. These criteria will be considered for all travel-to-work areas. For very large travel-to-work areas, including London, the situation in their constituent parts is also being considered.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals his Department has submitted to the European Commission for a new assisted areas map; and when he plans to submit further proposals.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 12 May 1993]: The Government's full proposals for the new assisted areas map will be submitted to the European Commission shortly. Proposals for enhanced assisted area status for the Barnsley, Doncaster and Mansfield travel-to-work areas, which formed part of the package of support measures for coal closure areas announced by my right hon. Friend last October, were cleared with the European Commission beforehand. Additionally, my statement about Swan

  535
  Hunter on 12 May indicated that the Newcastle and South Tyneside travel-to-work areas would remain as development areas, subject to European Commission approval: discussion with the Commission on this point is now under way.

WALES

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the non-governmental public bodies operational in Wales indicating(a) the total number of Government appointees, (b) the number of Welsh-speaking appointees, (c) the total number of staff employed, (d) the number of

  Non-departmental public body (NDPB)

  Number of staff

  Number of Welsh speaking staff

  Number of staff received paid leave to learn Welsh (1992–93)

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  86·5

  4

  21

  Countryside Council for Wales

  299·0

  75

  81

  Curriculum Council for Wales

  26·0

  10

  4

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  124·0

  36

  115

  Higher and Further Education Funding Councils

  42·0

  8

  0

  Housing for Wales

  75·0

  20

  12

  Land Authority for Wales

  43·0

  Not known

  0

  National Library of Wales

  215·0

  199

  3

  National Museum of Wales

  499·0

  157

  21

  Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales

  35·0

  10

  6

  Sports Council for Wales

  147·0

  27

  0

  Wales Tourist Board

  109·0

  46

  3

  Wales Youth Agency

  10·0

  4

  2—

  Welsh Development Agency

  442·0

  40

  37

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  31·0

  5

  0

  1 In-house tuition also provided.

  2 Private tutor visits office weekly.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 523, what conclusions he has now drawn about travel times from the specified communities to Bridgend and Barry, following his discussions on 23 April.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The length of time taken for residents of these communities to reach Bridgend and Barry would vary according to such things as the route taken and the means of transport used.

  Housing Needs Assessment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish a national housing needs assessment mechanism in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones:
  No.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to make his Department's housing needs assessment research in Wales available for public scrutiny.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Housing Management Advisory Panel for Wales has just published "Taking Stock: A Guide to Local Housing Assessment".
  536
  Welsh-speaking staff and (e) the number of staff within each body that have received paid leave to attend courses to learn Welsh for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 23 March 1993 at columns 549–50, listing the public bodies to which I make appointments. As some people hold more than one appointment, the number of appointees is 960. Of these, 129 have indicated on their nomination form that they speak Welsh. However, this information is not provided in all cases. Only executive non-departmental public bodies employ staff, and the information requested is shown in the table.

  Epilepsy
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he intends to take following the recent seminars on epilepsy in Wales regarding(a) dissemination of the conclusions of the report, "Epilepsy, in Wales—a Study of the Needs of People with Epilepsy, Current Services and of Potential Developments", (b) the identification of potential strategies for development of support services and (c) the current and potential roles and responsibilities of voluntary, statutory and professional agencies.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The seminars were paid for by the Welsh Office as part of our further consultations to assist consideration of this matter. The report of the seminars has only recently been received and is being carefully studied.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority the number of(a) teachers, (b) nursery nurses and (c) teachers' aides employed who are disabled.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Immunisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of babies were immunised and vaccinated in each family health service authority area in the last year for which statistics are available and the two previous years; and if he will provide a similar list for those children receiving their booster vaccination and immunisation injections.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information relating to children immunised is collected by health authorities. The percentage of children resident at the end of the year in question and who had been immunised by their second birthday is given in the tables.

  Information on the number of booster vaccinations is not collected in such a manner that would enable the Department to calculate a percentage of children vaccinated by a given birthday. However, the tables show the number of children aged four and under who received booster/reinforcing doses in each of the last three years, based on the district in which the dose was given rather than the district in which the child was resident. These figures do not represent the number of children who had received a booster/reinforcing dose by the age of four and under, as a child would be included in the figures only for the year in which the dose was given.

  Percentage of children immunised by their 2nd birthday

  Diphtheria

  Tetanus

  Pertussis

  Polio

  Measles

  1989–90

  Clwyd

  91·8

  91·8

  79·2

  91·9

  85·0

  East Dyfed

  90·8

  90·9

  67·6

  90·8

  83·1

  Gwent

  90·4

  90·4

  69·9

  90·6

  82·1

  Gwynedd

  94·4

  94·5

  73·1

  94·6

  87·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  89·0

  89·1

  65·4

  89·3

  76·9

  Pembrokeshire

  93·8

  93·9

  82·1

  93·6

  86·5

  Powys

  95·0

  95·3

  78·3

  95·2

  91·1

  South Glamorgan

  86·6

  86·6

  72·4

  86·5

  75·2

  West Glamorgan

  90·7

  90·7

  69·5

  90·9

  81·7

  1990–91

  Clwyd

  93·9

  93·9

  85·0

  94·0

  88·2

  East Dyfed

  94·3

  94·3

  75·3

  94·1

  88·0

  Gwent

  92·2

  92·2

  75·5

  92·4

  85·9

  Gwynedd

  94·9

  94·9

  80·0

  95·0

  88·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  92·1

  92·2

  75·0

  92·2

  82·6

  Pembrokeshire

  95·4

  95·4

  86·9

  95·5

  91·8

  Powys

  96·6

  96·7

  85·8

  96·9

  92·2

  South Glamorgan

  90·6

  90·7

  77·9

  90·6

  83·7

  West Glamorgan

  91·3

  91·3

  76·9

  91·2

  83·6

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  94·8

  94·8

  89·1

  94·8

  90·5

  East Dyfed

  95·0

  95·0

  81·6

  95·1

  91·5

  Gwent

  91·1

  91·1

  78·5

  92·4

  86·9

  Gwynedd

  96·1

  96·2

  86·6

  96·2

  92·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  93·0

  93·1

  80·5

  93·3

  86·6

  Pembrokeshire

  95·2

  95·2

  89·2

  96·1

  92·0

  Powys

  96·1

  96·1

  89·6

  96·1

  92·3

  South Glamorgan

  93·0

  93·0

  84·9

  94·4

  88·3

  West Glamorgan

  93·1

  93·1

  83·2

  94·4

  89·0

  538

  Number of children who received booster/reinforcing doses

  Diphtheria

  Tetanus

  Polio

  1989–90:

  Clwyd

  2,448

  2,454

  2,444

  East Dyfed

  2,125

  2,127

  2,125

  Gwent

  4,384

  4,387

  4,398

  Gwynedd

  1,311

  1,317

  1,305

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,546

  2,559

  2,544

  Pembrokeshire

  686

  689

  690

  Powys

  703

  703

  708

  South Glamorgan

  4,110

  4,116

  4,127

  West Glamorgan

  2,792

  2,787

  2,800

  1990–91:

  Clwyd

  3,281

  3,284

  3,279

  East Dyfed

  2,376

  2,379

  2,372

  Gwent

  4,866

  4,866

  4,883

  Gwynedd

  2,156

  2,163

  2,158

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,366

  5,364

  5,374

  Pembrokeshire

  1,510

  1,509

  1,513

  Powys

  1,570

  1,572

  1,572

  South Glamorgan

  4,342

  4,344

  4,353

  West Glamorgan

  4,154

  4,154

  4,155

  1991–92:

  Clwyd

  3,525

  3,526

  3,537

  East Dyfed

  2,503

  2,504

  2,495

  Gwent

  5,261

  5,263

  5,269

  Gwynedd

  2,407

  2,411

  2,410

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,796

  5,797

  5,810

  Pembrokeshire

  1,447

  1,447

  1,448

  Powys

  1,407

  1,407

  1,408

  South Glamorgan

  4,884

  4,886

  4,884

  West Glamorgan

  4,193

  4,199

  4,197

  Tourism
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new initiatives the Welsh tourist board will be embarking on in the summer of 1993 to attract visitors to Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The WTB has launched a major new £2·5 million advertising and promotional campaign for 1993–94 as part of its ongoing marketing strategy to support the tourism industry in Wales. This includes television advertisements, campaign posters, direct mailing/response advertising for the autumn, main and spring seasons. In addition to this, the WTB has earmarked nearly £800,000 for campaigns in selected overseas target markets with a much greater emphasis on European database marketing activities.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on how many people over the age of 65 years live alone in Wales; and how many people aged 65 years or more living alone have suffered from dementia in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The 1991 census recorded that there were 174,049 persons of pensionable age living alone in Wales. Information on those over the age of 65 years living alone is not available. Information on the number of people aged 65 years or more living alone who have suffered from dementia is not available centrally.

  Pollution, Pontypool
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of his Department's report on polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins and furans in the Pontypool environment—the Panteg monitoring project —have been printed; and to whom it has been distributed.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Two hundred. Copies were provided for local Members of Parliament; the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs; the EEC; the regulatory authorities; ReChem International Ltd; Torfaen borough council; property holders in the Panteg area on whose land significant testing had been carried out and the secretary of Mothers and Children against Toxic Waste.

  The Welsh Office is also making the report available to other interested parties at £25 each.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies in Wales, for which he advises on the membership; and if he will list the members so appointed;

  (2) if he will list the members of all the non-departmental public bodies for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 23 March 1993 at columns 549–50, listing current appointments I have made to public bodies in Wales. Information on appointments made by other Government Ministers is contained in "Public Bodies 1992" available in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to the report by the Social Security Consortium entitled "The Social Fund: Failing the Poorest", a copy of which has been sent to him; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement on the findings of the report.

  Mr. Scott
  We have noted the report, which is based on the research we commissioned from York university's social policy research unit—SPRU. We are carefully considering the operation of the social fund in response to the SPRU research, along with a number of other authoritative reports and our own close monitoring of the fund.

  Methods of Payment
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce financial inducements to pensioners and other benefit recipients to obtain their benefits through banks rather than post offices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no such plans.

  Severe Hardship Claims
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table listing the number of severe hardship claims made and awards granted for each of the last 12 quarters in each district.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 12 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 if he will publish a table listing the number of severe hardship claims made and awards granted for each of the last twelve quarters in each district.

  The complete range of information you have requested is not available except at a disproportionate cost. This is primarily because statistics regarding severe hardship claims are maintained clerically and not in the format requested. Additionally, the Benefits Agency district arrangements were introduced only in April 1991, and statistics prior to this relate to the former local office structure.

  I have, however, appended the national figures for Severe Hardship claims and awards for the period requested. I should emphasise that these relate to claims made rather than individual customers.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. Copies of this letter will be placed in the Library.

  National severe hardship claims and awards

  Quarter ending

  Number of claims

  Number successful

  June 1990

  6,573

  4,600

  September 1990

  7,417

  5,329

  December 1990

  6,558

  4,952

  541

  Quarter ending

  Number of claims

  Number successful

  March 1991

  10,699

  8,050

  June 1991

  13,031

  10,356

  September 1991

  16,269

  13,021

  December 1991

  15,163

  12,372

  March 1992

  23,539

  19,646

  June 1992

  25,258

  20,716

  September 1992

  28,160

  23,127

  December 1992

  25,107

  19,917

  March 1993

  36,937

  30,839

  Income Support
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the latest available figures for(a) income support recipients, (b) those in receipt of a family premium and (c) those in receipt of lone-parent premiums in the district council areas of Derbyshire.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 12 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 if he will give the latest available figures for (a) Income Support recipients, (b) those in receipt of a family premium and (c) those in receipt of lone parent premiums in the district council areas of Derbyshire.

  The complete range of information you have requested is not available and could he provided only at a disproportionate cost. This is because information regarding the number of Income Support recipients is not collected on the basis of district council areas. Additionally, statistics are not routinely collected that reflect the number of customers in receipt of a family premium.

  Information concerning lone parent premiums and the number of Income Support recipients in the Benefits Agency's offices in Derbyshire is in the Official Report Vol. 224 Col. 300.

  However, estimates of the numbers of recipients receiving family premium and lone parent premium nationally are available from the Annual Statistical Enquiry (ASE). This is a point in time survey based on a one per cent. sample of all people in receipt of Income Support.

  The latest information from the ASE relates to May 1991. The estimates from this were 4,487,000 recipients of Income Support, 1,318,000 recipients of the family premium and 871,000 recipients of the lone parent premium.

  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.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the latest available figures for(a) claimants, (b) adult dependants who are in receipt of income support and (c) the number of children in such households in the district council areas of Derbyshire.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  542
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 12 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 if he will give the latest available figures of (a) claimants, (b) adult dependants who are in receipt of Income Support and (c) the number of children in such households in the district council areas of Derbyshire.

  The complete range of information you have requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. This is because information regarding the number of Income Support recipients, their children or adult dependants, is not collected on the basis of district council areas. However, information concerning the number of Income Support recipients by Benefits Agency office in Derbyshire can he found in the Library.

  Estimates of the numbers of adult dependants and children nationally are available from the Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry (ASE). This is a point in time survey based on a one per cent. sample of all people in receipt of Income Support.

  The latest information from the ASE related to May 1991. The estimates from this were 4,487,000 recipients of Income Support, 763,000 partners, 2,368,000 children under 16 and 129,000 dependants aged between 16 and 19.

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

  Pensions
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals living in the Falkland Islands are currently in receipt of a British state retirement pension; what would be the additional cost of granting them inflation-proofed pensions; and if he will seek to conclude as soon as possible a reciprocal agreement in respect of the Falkland Islands.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]: In December 1991, the latest date for which figures are currently available, 14 people resident in the Falkland Islands were receiving United Kingdom retirement pensions. The additional cost of paying them inflation-proofed pensions would be approximately £11,000 per year, at 1992 rates. However, any concession on indexation for the Falklands would lead inevitably to pressure to treat pensioners living in other countries in the same way. To inflation-proof United Kingdom pensions worldwide, for the 355,000 British pensioners who do not receive index-linked payments, would cost some £275 million a year. We therefore have no plans to conclude a reciprocal agreement with the Falkland Islands.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rabies
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to revise the legal provisions and the inspections practice of Her Majesty's Customs to keep rabies and other notifiable diseases out of the United Kingdom following the opening of the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  An order will shortly be presented to the House which will provide the legal backing for policing and frontier controls in respect of the channel tunnel. The order will not introduce any new rabies control measures,
  543
  but will adapt our current procedures at ports of entry around the United Kingdom to the unique physical circumstances of the channel tunnel. Animal health controls at the channel tunnel and its terminals will be just as strict as those presently in force at sea ports and airports. In addition, the channel tunnel concessionaires have established a number of preventive measures to prevent animals entering the tunnel, and more will be put in place once the tunnel is operational.

  Ozone Depletion
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been commissioned by the Government on the implications of the depletion of the ozone layer for agriculture in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government will be spending over £0·5 million in 1993–94 on research to examine the effects of ultra-violet-B—UV-B—radiation on agricultural crops. The project sponsors, titles, contractors and estimated costs for 1993–94 are as follows:

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  Effects of UV-B irradiation on cell cycle gene expression and DNA repair in developing wheat (Tricticum aestivum L.) leaves.

  University of Manchester, with Horticulture Research International.

  £54,000.

  The molecular basis of UV-B perception and response in plants.

  University of Glasgow.

  £38,000.

  Molecular mechanisms involved in UV-B induced changes in gene expression for photosynthetic proteins.

  Horticulture Research International.

  £43,000.

  The interactions of enhanced UV-B and water stress on oil seed rape cultivars with differing UV-B sensitivity.

  University of Cambridge.

  £67,000.

  Characterise the molecular basis of gene regulation by environmental stress, including UV-B.

  Horticulture Research International.

  £167,000 (1992–93 cost. 1993–94 estimated cost is unavailable).

  Department of the Environment

  Impact of increased UV-B radiation (the impacts of UV-B on natural and cultivated vegetation in the United Kingdom; mapping the risk of UV-B impacts on cultivated and natural vegetation in the United Kingdom; and, the impacts of UV-B on plant pathogens and host-pathogen interactions).

  University of Lancaster.

  £84,000.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Responses of crops to UV-B radiation.

  University of Lancaster, with Horticulture Research International.

  £74,000.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether foot and mouth disease was present in any of the countries from which the imported cattle, currently subject to his Ministry's attempts to trace those which have been vaccinated, have originated; how 544
  many of the animals imported into the United Kingdom have not yet been traced; and what factors are responsible for the time it is taking to locate the remaining suspect animals.

  Mr. Gummer
  There have been no confirmed reports of the presence of foot and mouth disease in either the Czech Republic or in Poland in recent years.

  The vast majority of Czech cattle, for which the tracing exercise began first, have now been located and good progress is being made in tracing the Polish cattle.

  Some difficulties have been experienced in tracing those animals which have passed through the hands of several owners since they were originally imported. Tracing has also been made more difficult by the keeping of poor movement records by some owners and some retagging of livestock following change of ownership.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date the last consignment of livestock suspected of having been vaccinated against foot and mouth disease was received into the United Kingdom; and after what period of time there is no risk of a latent carrier of the disease transmitting that disease to other animals.

  Mr. Gummer
  The last consignment of livestock suspected of having been vaccinated against foot and mouth disease—FMD—arrived in this country on 25 March 1993. All imported FMD-seropositive animals have been inspected by the State Veterinary Service. There is no evidence of clinical disease in any of the animals or suggestion that any of the animals are carriers. Studies elsewhere have shown that carrier animals may be the source of subsequent disease outbreaks up to two and a half years after the carrier animal was first infected.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to ensure that any animal slaughtered because of vaccination for foot and mouth will be destroyed and not allowed to enter the food chain.

  Mr. Gummer
  All animals found to be vaccinated against FMD will be either re-exported or slaughtered. There is no risk to public health from vaccinated animals entering the food chain.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to ensure that farmers who came to be in possession of vaccinated cattle are not made responsible for meeting the direct losses incurred.

  Mr. Gummer
  The resolution of the problem is a commercial matter and it is for the current owners and importers to come to a mutually acceptable arrangement with the exporter in the country of origin for the animals' re-export or slaughter.

  Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the working party on naturally occurring toxicants in food to complete its study of pyrrolizidine alkaloids in milk and in herbal remedies; whether the report of that study will be published; and what pyrrolizidine alkaloids the study has so far found in milk samples.
  545
  Mr. Soames
  The working party on naturally occurring toxicants in food has completed its study of pyrrolizidine alkaloids in milk. Pyrrolizidine alkaloids were not detected in any of the milk samples taken. A project to study the metabolism of pyrrolizidine alkaloids found in herbal ingredients has recently commenced and is due for completion in 1995. The results of all these studies will be published. Data on pyrrolizidine alkaloids in the herbal remedy comfrey have already been published.

PRIME MINISTER

  Means-tested Payments
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all payments made to individuals by Government Departments, Government agencies and local authorities which are subject to a means test.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not available centrally. The main source of income-related payments is the social security system which provides benefits administered by the Benefits Agency and local authorities. These benefits include income support, family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  A number of Departments operate income-related assistance for a variety of special purposes. For example:
  The Department of Education operates a system of mandatory and discretionary grants for people in higher education. Such awards consist of two parts, fees and maintenance, the latter of which is means tested. The scheme is administered by local authorities.
  The Department of the Environment provides a scheme for home renovation which is administered by local authorities.
  The Lord Chancellor's Department operates the scheme for legal aid.
  The Department of Health is responsible for the NHS low income scheme which provides help with NHS charges, optical costs and fares to hospital to receive NHS treatment.

  Alan Clark (Diaries)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration has been given to the confidentiality guidelines set out in the advice to Ministers manual in relation to the submission by the right hon. Alan Clark, former Minister of State for Defence Procurement, of his diaries to the Cabinet Office for review prior to publication.

  The Prime Minister
  Paragraph 19 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" requires former Ministers to submit their memoirs to the Secretary of the Cabinet before publication and to conform to the principles set out in the Radcliffe report of 1976 (Cmnd 6386). In offering comments, the Secretary of the Cabinet takes account of the recommendations in the Radcliffe report about the protection of confidential relationships within Government.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to monitor the incidence of kwashiakor, marasmus and malaria in Iraq; and by what mechanism Her Majesty's Government monitor the condition of the Iraqi people.
  546
  The Prime Minister
  The United Nations conducted an assessment mission to Iraq in March 1993 which included a survey of the health of the population. As a result, WHO and UNICEF have included programmes to help relieve the situation in the United Nations plan of action. As well as official United Nations reports we also receive independent reports from non-governmental organisations working in Iraq.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the average time to elapse between the offence and the completion of proceedings at magistrates courts for an indictable offence for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the average time taken for indictable cases from offence to completion has been collected centrally only since 1985. Data are published at regular intervals in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin series; issue Nos. 24/89 and 8/93 cover the years 1985 to 1992. Copies are available from the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to the sentencing powers of the courts in respect of persistent 10 to 14-year-old offenders.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Courts currently do not have the power to sentence persistent juvenile offenders to custody. I propose to remedy this as soon as possible by introducing a secure training order for 12 to 15-year-olds.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what view he has formed of the effectiveness of current measures to deal with persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the current measures to deal with persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I do not consider that the measures currently available to the courts when they have to deal with persistent juvenile offenders are satisfactory. That is why I announced new proposals in my statement to the House on 2 March 1993, at columns 139 to 42.
  547
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the numbers of juvenile offenders who come from single-parent families.

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that information currently available does not enable that particular assessment to be made.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the operation of juvenile attendance centres.

  Mr. Jack
  The operation of attendance centres is kept under constant review. We are, however, currently preparing a new national standard which will cover objectives and regimes, revised attendance centre rules and fresh detailed administrative guidance for officers in charge of centres, all of which will be subject to an appropriate process of consultation before they are issued.

  Home Office circular 72/1992 issued on 28 July 1992 described some of the new arrangements for dealing with young offenders following the full implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and reminded courts of their powers to make attendance centre orders where young people have defaulted in the payment of fines. This circular listed all the centres available in England and Wales.

  My Department also produces a periodical publication called "Attendance Centre News" which is circulated to, among others, the officers in charge of the centres, probation and social services and the courts. The most recent edition which was produced in a more accessible and informative style than previous versions was published in September last year. It included articles about the activities undertaken at the centres. A copy of it is available in the Library of the House.

  Crime and the Economy
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made as to any link between crime and the economic situation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Work on this subject was covered in the Home Office research study "Trends in crime and their interpretation" published in 1990 and I have no current plans for fresh research into this area.

  MSV Pescado
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made by Devon and Cornwall police in raising the MSV Pescado.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The salvage company contracted to raise the Pescado on behalf of the Devon and Cornwall constabulary hopes to raise the vessel in the very near future.

  Libyan Life Prisoners
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners of Libyan nationality are now serving life sentences in United Kingdom prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Five prisoners of Libyan nationality are now serving life sentences in United Kingdom prisons.

  Police Authority Chairpersons
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria will be used by him to select the chairpersons of the new police authorities.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We want businesslike, efficiently run police authorities which are able to monitor police performance locally, to help establish local policing needs and to ensure the delivery of local and national policing objectives. This will require leadership from the police authority. I will select from the overall membership the person who is best able to give that lead.

  Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which five police forces have the highest clear-up rates in England and Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Dyfed-Powys cleared up 53 per cent. in 1992 followed by Gwent with 44 per cent., Merseyside with 42 per cent. and Suffolk and Lincolnshire with 39 per cent.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the action taken by his Department to deal with lenient sentences.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on legislation relating to appeals against lenient sentences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring).

  Police Duties
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to increase the numbers of police officers on the streets.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have increased numbers by 16,500 since 1979. Increasing police strength is not, though, the only way to increase the number of front-line officers. We encourage police authorities to civilianise posts which do not need to be done by police officers, and to ensure that their officers are deployed as effectively as possible. This will allow more police officers to be released for operational duties, rather than having to undertake administrative tasks which can be done by others.

  Criminal Justice Act 1991
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the workings of the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Arrangements were made in advance of the implementation of the Act on 1 October 1991 for its effects to be carefully monitored and evaluated. This process is still ongoing, but my right hon. and learned Friend has already said that it will be necessary to make some changes
  549

  to the sentencing provisions in part I of the Act and in the arrangements under which the courts operate the unit fine system.

  Unit Fine System
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State For the Home Department what steps he is taking to review the workings of the unit fine system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have been keeping the operation of the unit fine system under close review since it came into operation on 1 October 1992. We have also received representations about it, most recently from the Magistrates Association of England and Wales. Following its meeting with us on 4 May, the association has issued a bulletin to its members encouraging magistrates to make full use of the discretion already available to them under the system, in setting fine levels. But we have recognised that it will also be necessary to make some changes by way of legislation in areas such as the mechanism for determining unit values, in order to ensure that the scheme operates fairly and in accordance with the original intention. These changes will be introduced as soon as possible.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his assessment of the effectiveness of improved street lighting to combat crime.

  Mr. Jack
  Research for the Home Office has shown that improved lighting can reduce crime when introduced as part of a package of crime prevention measures. By itself, better street lighting appears to have no direct effect on crime levels, but it is helpful in reducing the fear of crime and making people feel safer.

  Car Crime
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to reduce car crime.

  Persons bailed by the police, magistrates' courts or Crown court who failed to appear 1981–1991

  England and Wales

  Thousands and percentages

  Police

  Magistrates' courts

  Crown Court1

  Number failing to appear

  Proportion of those bailed

  Number failing to appear

  Proportion of those bailed

  Number failing to appear

  Proportion of those bailed

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  1981

  22·5

  4

  13·2

  5

  3·0

  4

  1982

  22·1

  5

  13·8

  4

  3·0

  4

  1983

  25·1

  4

  12·7

  4

  2·3

  3

  1984

  18·6

  3

  14·7

  4

  3·1

  4

  1985

  17·1

  3

  15·0

  4

  3·9

  5

  1986

  18·9

  4

  15·4

  5

  4·5

  6

  1987

  25·5

  5

  18·7

  5

  5·4

  7

  1988

  28·6

  5

  21·7

  6

  6·4

  7

  1989

  32·8

  5

  22·5

  6

  6·6

  8

  1990

  39·9

  6

  31·6

  7

  7·4

  8

  1991

  42·6

  7

  32·8

  7

  8·4

  9

  1 Includes those bailed by magistrates' on committal who failed to appear at the Crown Court.

  550
  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale).

  Obscene Publications Acts
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made by the Metropolitan police in the latest year for which figures are available for offences arising out of the Obscene Publications Acts.

  Mr. Jack
  None. The Obscene Publications Act does not provide the police with a power of arrest.

  Gun Licences
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review laws under which licences are issued for people to hold guns where objections are made to the authorities by next of kin of the applicant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Firearms Acts 1968 to 1992 require the chief officer of police to satisfy himself that an applicant for a firearm or shotgun certificate can be permitted to possess a firearm or shotgun without danger to public safety or to the peace. The chief officer may take account of any objections from the applicant's next of kin or anybody else when considering such an application. We have no plans to review this aspect of the law.

  Bail (Court Appearances)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many, and what percentage, of defendants bailed by(a) the police, (b) magistrates and (c) the Crown court failed to appear for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is given in the table, and published annually in "Criminal statistics, England and Wales", chapter 8.

  Crime Statistics
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many crimes were recorded by the police in England and Wales in(a) 1979 and (b) 1992; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many (a) incidents of violence against a person and (b) robberies were recorded by the police in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1992; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many incidents of fraud and forgery were recorded by the police in (a) 1979 and (b) 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The requested information is published in table 2.17 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1989" and in table 6 of Home Office statistical bulletin 9/93; copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the percentage clear-up rate for crime, (b) the authorised police establishment and (c) the total number of crimes reported for each police force in England and Wales for 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 29 April 1993]: Information on percentage clear-up rates and the number of recorded offences by police force area for 1992 is contained in tables 4 and 2 respectively of Home Office statistical bulletin 9/93, a copy of which is available in the Library. Figures for the authorised police establishment for 31 December 1992 are contained in the table:

  Authorised police establishment as at 31 December 1992

  England and Wales 1992

  Police force area

  Authorised establishment

  Avon and Somerset

  3,087

  Bedfordshire

  1,178

  Cambridgeshire

  1,241

  Cheshire

  1,920

  Cleveland

  1,502

  Cumbria

  1,187

  Derbyshire

  1,850

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,928

  Dorset

  1,302

  Durham

  1,389

  Essex

  2,950

  Gloucestershire

  1,184

  Greater Manchester

  7,077

  Hampshire

  3,269

  Hertfordshire

  1,684

  Humberside

  2,034

  Kent

  3,096

  Lancashire

  3,229

  Leicestershire

  1,853

  Lincolnshire

  1,206

  London, City of

  798

  Merseyside

  4,706

  Metropolitan Police District

  28,240

  Norfolk

  1,446

  Northamptonshire

  1,190

  Northumbria

  3,613

  North Yorkshire

  1,418

  Nottinghamshire

  2,344

  South Yorkshire

  3,031

  Staffordshire

  2,215

  Suffolk

  1,233

  Surrey

  1,673

  Sussex

  3,014

  Thames Valley

  3,812

  Warwickshire

  1,020

  West Mercia

  2,053

  West Midlands

  6,977

  552

  Police force area

  Authorised establishment

  West Yorkshire

  5,295

  Wiltshire

  1,181

  Dyfed-Powys

  969

  Gwent

  1,010

  North Wales

  1,369

  South Wales

  3,168

  England and Wales

  126,941

  Police Roles
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a detailed study of the present and future roles of the police.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is currently awaiting the report from Sir Patrick Sheehy, chairman of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards. In reaching its recommendations, the inquiry has been considering and taking into account, the results of fact-finding studies into the roles and responsibilities of police officers.

  Poppers
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the proscribing of the recreational drug poppers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The active ingredient of "poppers" is one or other of a group of chemicals known as alkyl nitrites. The misuse of alkyl nitrites has been considered by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on three occasions, most recently in 1991. The council found that, although these substances posed a limited health hazard when misused, they were not dependence forming and did not give rise to the sorts of social problems which were sufficient to justify their control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  We continue to keep the situation under review.

  Bone Tests
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of his Department's tests at Aldermaston to identify bones brought from Russia.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have asked the chief executive of the Forensic Science Service to reply and she will do so shortly. A copy of her reply will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Dr. Janet Thompson to Mr. David Atkinson, undated:

  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question about the joint Russian British project to identify remains purported to be those of Tsar Nicholas II and his family. As you know, the arrangement now is that the Chief Executive of an Executive Agency, with the agreement of the Minister, replies to Members of Parliament on operational matters. I am therefore replying on behalf of the Home Office Forensic Science Service (FSS).

  Samples of the remains discovered near Ekaterinburg in July 1991 were brought to Britain in September by Dr. Pavel Ivanov of the Bureau of the Chief Forensic Medical

  553
  Examiner, Russian Ministry of Health. Work carried out in Russia had lead to a tentative identification but Russian forensic authorities sought the assistance of the FSS in applying the Polymerase Chain Reaction DNA technique to the samples.

  Extraction of DNA from the samples was successful. Comparison with DNA from known relatives of the Romanov family, and statistical analysis of the findings, is at present being undertaken at the FSS's Research Laboratory in Aldermaston. We expect to announce the results of the project in the summer.

  The work also forms part of the FSS research programme. If validated, the techniques used will be applied to criminal casework and will extend the range of services we provide.

  Interior Ministers Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals in regard to deterring, discovering and apprehending nuclear smugglers will be discussed at the European Interior Ministers Council in Denmark on 6 and 7 May.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Horse Watch Schemes
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department is doing to support horse watch schemes in all parts of the country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We encourage all watch type schemes which involve members of the community helping the police in the fight against crime.

  I understand that police forces throughout the country provide assistance to people wishing to set up horse 'watch schemes. For example, there are schemes in operation in areas such as Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Suffolk and Northumbria.

  In March this year, the Association of Chief Police Officers gave approval to national guidelines which have been drawn up by the British Horse Society. The guidelines provide information on how to set up and run horse watch schemes and have recently been sent to all police forces in England and Wales. It is, however, ultimately for each chief officer of police to decide how to allocate the resources available to him.

  Police (Courts)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to reduce the time spent by police officers attending court which turn out to be unnecessary because they are not called as witnesses.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The implementation of the recommendations of the working group on pre-trial issues which are aimed at increasing the efficiency of the whole pre-trial process will affect this. The recommendations include improved court listing procedures and greater emphasis on pre-trial hearings. The package of measures should significantly reduce the number of occasions on which police officers attend court for no useful purpose.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Flag
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the origin and current status of the Northern Ireland flag.
  554
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In 1953 the former Government of Northern Ireland gave their assent to the flying in certain circumstances of their own flag known as the "Ulster Banner". This consists of a St. George's cross with a crowned six-pointed star and a red hand at the centre. This was not intended to be a replacement or alternative to the Union flag as the official flag of Northern Ireland. Since the dissolution of the Government of Northern Ireland, this flag has had no official status.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what flag or flags are used by Her Majesty's Government to represent Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The official flag of Northern Ireland is the Union flag.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the occasions in the last year on which the Minister responsible for health and agriculture visited the constituency of Upper Bann, indicating with respect to each visit whether the hon. Member for that constituency was notified.

  Mr. Hanley
  In his capacity as health Minister, my noble Friend Lord Arran visited Craigavon area hospital on 11 May 1992 and 20 April 1993, and Banvale social education centre on 17 February 1993. In his capacity as Minister for agriculture, he visited the constituency of Upper Bann on 12 May 1992, 23 July 1992, 27 August 1992 and 24 February 1993. The hon. Member was notified on each occasion except 27 August 1992.

  Security Statistics
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available the security statistics for 1991, together with details of persons charged with terrorist-type offences and convictions for scheduled offences for the year.

  Mr. Mates
  Security statistics for 1991 are as follows. Statistics for previous years can be obtained from the Library.

  Table 1

  Statistics of terrorist activity

  Number

  (a) Shooting incidents1

  409

  (b) Explosions

  230

  Estimated weight in kilograms

  6,578

  (c) Bombs neutralised

  137

  Estimated weight in kilograms

  2,700

  (d) Armed robberies

  536

  (e) Amount stolen

  £1,672,884

  (f) Malicious fires

  333

  (g) Deaths:

  Civilian

  75

  Regular Army

  5

  Royal Irish Regiment

  8

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  5

  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve

  1

  TOTAL

  94

  555

  Number

  (f) Injuries:

  Civilian

  570

  Regular Army

  197

  Royal Irish Regiment

  56

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  108

  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve

  31

  TOTAL

  962

  1 Excludes shots heard.

  Table 2

  Statistics of security forces activity

  Number

  (a) (i) Dwellings searched by the Army:

  Occupied

  746

  Unoccupied

  176

  Derelict

  164

  TOTAL

  1,086

  (a) (ii) Dwellings searched by the RUC:

  Occupied

  1—

  Unoccupied

  Derelict

  TOTAL

  2,961

  Table 3

  Convictions and sentences for scheduled offences tried on indictment at Belfast Crown Court 1991

  Custodial sentences (January to December 1991

  Offences

  Persons convicted

  Non-custodial sentence

  Young offenders centre/ training school

  Less than 5 years

  5 years and less than 7 years

  7 years and less than 10 years

  10 years and less than 15 years

  15 years and less than 20 years

  20 years and over

  Detained S.O.S.

  Life

  Murder

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  8

  Aiding and abetting murder

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Attempted murder

  16

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  5

  5

  0

  0

  Conspiracy to murder

  14

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  5

  2

  4

  0

  0

  Manslaughter

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

  5

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent

  20

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wounding or grievous bodily harm

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kidnapping and false imprisonment

  20

  3

  0

  4

  4

  5

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Arson

  7

  1

  2

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Petrol bomb offences

  7

  6

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hijacking

  8

  4

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Robbery

  88

  20

  26

  24

  8

  8

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Burglary (aggravated)

  4

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blackmail

  7

  3

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Receiving

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Membership

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Unlawful collection of information

  10

  1

  1

  5

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wearing hoods

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Withholding information

  7

  6

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Recording information

  4

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possession of information useful lo terrorists

  11

  2

  0

  6

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Making properly available

  13

  8

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Riot

  7

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Carrying firearm with intent

  10

  4

  2

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possession of firearm in suspicious circumstances

  11

  5

  2

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possession of firearm with intent

  48

  15

  5

  2

  6

  12

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Explosives offences

  34

  2

  1

  2

  3

  6

  5

  10

  5

  0

  0

  Intimidation

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Threats to kill

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Criminal damage

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Handling

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pervert course of justice (attempt)

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Theft

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  556

  Number

  (b) Finds:

  Weapons

  214

  Ammunition (rounds of)

  18,175

  Explosives (weight in Kg)

  4,168

  (c) Persons charged with terrorist-type offences:

  Murder

  37

  Attempted murder

  83

  Firearms offences

  87

  Explosives offences

  24

  Armed robbery

  40

  Others

  120

  TOTAL

  391

  1 Breakdown into occupied, unoccupied or derelict not provided by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Note: Searches of dwellings frequently involve both the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary and are registered in their respective records. The totals should therefore not be aggregated and are shown separately to avoid an element of double counting.
  557

  Custodial sentences (January to December 1991)

  Offences

  Persons convicted

  Non-custodial sentence

  Young offenders centre/ training school

  Less than 5 years

  5 years and less than 7 years

  7 years and less than 10 years

  10 years and less than 15 years

  15 years and less than 20 years

  20 years and over

  Detained S O S.

  Life

  Taking motor vehicle without consent

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Breach of community service order

  3

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Breach of suspended sentence

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Making or receiving contributions

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  388

  115

  48

  77

  34

  38

  34

  17

  14

  1

  10

  Notes:

  1. Non-scheduled offences are included in table 3 where co-defendants were charged with scheduled offences, and where the charge was "reduced" (e.g. from robbery to handling stolen goods), or where a defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

  2. Breach of community service orders/suspended sentences are included where the orders were made on scheduled offences. They are also included where the breach of conditions is heard along with other scheduled offences.

  3. Where a person has been convicted of more than one offence, only that offence which received the longest sentence is recorded in the statistics.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Indonesia
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current extent of United Kingdom aid to Indonesia; and what has it been over the past five years.

  (in £ millions)

  Technical Co-op and Financial Aid

  ATP

  CDC

  Debt Relief

  Total

  1987–88

  6·044

  1·807

  4·537

  2·273

  14·660

  1988–89

  8·333

  2·410

  4·350

  2·273

  17·366

  1989–90

  7·445

  2·192

  9·707

  2·273

  21·616

  1990–91

  10·689

  6·342

  5·296

  2·273

  24·600

  1991–92

  10·372

  10·828

  10·952

  2·273

  34·425

  Figures for 1992–93 are not yet available.

  Brazil
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the Overseas Development Administration aid programme for Brazil; and what plans he has to augment the programme that assists Brazil's Indian population.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The main emphasis. of the Brazil programme is on environmental activities. There is a large programme of forestry support in the Amazonia region and a smaller programme of urban environmental projects. We are also involved in a number of other sectors, mainly involving human resource development. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 19 April 1993, columns 37–38.

  We are currently assisting indigenous people with support to six projects run by the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and OXFAM co-financed through the joint funding scheme. We have also agreed to assist the Ministry of Indian Affairs in refitting three aircraft which are used to protect and provide services for the indigenous peoples of Brazil.
  558
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 7 May, column 260.

  We also provide debt relief on past development loans. The Commonwealth Development Corporation currently has investments totalling £72 million and covering 11 projects.

  Gross public expenditure on United Kingdom aid to Indonesia since 1987–88 is as follows:

  Cambodia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds were pledged by the United Kingdom for Cambodia at the United Nations Aid Conference in Tokyo in June 1992; how this commitment has been met to date; what information he has on the payments made to date by the other pledger nations; and if he will make a statement on the current effectiveness of the United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In June 1992 we announced that our total aid pledge for Cambodia had been increased by $10 million to some $30 million. Of this sum we have already committed nearly $24 million, principally on humanitarian aid and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees repatriation programme, mine clearance, human rights, health care, water supply and English language teacher training. Of the $880 million pledged by donors at Tokyo, some $94·3 million had been provided for aid projects within Cambodia up to February this year. A national breakdown of this figure is not available.

  UNTAC has made considerable progress towards implementing the comprehensive political settlement in Cambodia. Preparations for the elections due to be held from 23 to 27 May are well advanced: more than

  559
  4·6 million Cambodians have registered to vote, 96 per cent. of those eligible; the election campaign began on 6 April, and UNTAC has taken a range of measures to promote a neutral political environment. In addition, nearly all the 350,000 refugees formerly in camps on the Thai-Cambodian border have returned to their homes.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will call on the G7 countries at their summit in July to support a financial plan for sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 12 May 1993]: We are working to ensure that the developing countries, including those in Africa, will be among the subjects covered at the G7 summit, especially as the summit will take place in the run-up to the conference on Africa to be hosted by the Japanese Government in October. The needs of sub-Saharan Africa have a high priority for the British aid programme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library before the United Nations conference on human rights in Vienna a copy of the United Kingdom national statement on human rights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A copy of the United Kingdom national statement at the United Nations world conference on human rights will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as it has been delivered.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations conference on human rights in Vienna in June.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We will be represented at the United Nations conference on human rights in Vienna from 14 to 25 June, by a delegation consisting of Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials with expertise in the field of human rights, including the United Kingdom permanent representative to the United Nations at Geneva, and representatives of interested dependent territories. The delegation will be led either by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs or by myself.

  Eritrea
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by his Department to grant diplomatic recognition to Eritrea following the recent referendum.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We warmly welcome the outcome of the referendum on Eritrea's status. United Nations observers have confirmed their satisfaction with the process. This opens the way for recognition of Eritrea. The Eritreans have announced that their independence will be formally declared on 24 May. Accordingly, we plan to announce our decision on recognition by that date.

  Public Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr Michie) of 25 November 1992,Official Report, column 861, what country he was in when the public immunity certificate to which he refers was (a) being considered and (b) signed.

  Mr. Hurd
  I was in South Africa when the public interest immunity was considered and signed on 3 and 4 September 1992. When the supplemental certificate was considered and signed, I had returned to London from the United Nations General Assembly in the early hours of 23 September for two debates in the House returning to New York in the afternoon of 25 September.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals were put forward by the United Kingdom in regard to the European Commission report on access to information; and what discussions took place and what decisions were taken on the report at the Foreign Affairs Council on 10 to 11 May.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  None. The Council agreed that the Commission's paper was a good basis for further work and that it should be studied further in the Committee of Permanent Representatives.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals were put forward by the United Kingdom on trade and environment at the Foreign Affairs Council on 10 to 11 May.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Kingdom did not put forward any specific proposals on trade and the environment at the Foreign Affairs Council on 10 May. Ministers agreed a statement put forward by the presidency on the relationship between trade and environmental policies in advance of the OECD ministerial meeting on 2 June.

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many entry clearances were issued to overseas domestic workers at the latest available date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Separate statistics on the number of entry clearances issued to domestic workers are not kept and could not be obtained except at disproportionate expense.

  Iran
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart regarding the sponsorship of terrorism by Iran.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have regular discussions with the United States on combating the whole range of international terrorism, including state sponsorship.
  561
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 April,Official Report, column 578, what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to combat international terrorism sponsored by Iran.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall continue our efforts, both through bilateral co-operation and international forums, to combat all forms of state support for international terrorism. We and our European partners made clear our concern about Iran's behaviour in this area at the Edinburgh summit in December 1992.

  Belize
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to guarantee the frontier of Belize with Guatemala; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Our policy is to contribute all we can to the continuing improvement in relations between Belize and Guatemala and to encourage a full and final settlement of the border dispute between the two countries.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest situation regarding the Belize garrison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The British garrison has been deployed in Belize since 1948. The central American region, of which Belize forms a part, has recently seen a welcome transformation in its political and security circumstances. The civil wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador are over; peace talks are in progress in Guatemala's 30-year domestic conflict; and progress towards regional integration is gathering speed. Central America's major neighbours, the Group of 3—Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela—are playing a part in this process, as is the United States. So is Britain, with its EC partners, through the San José dialogue between the EC and central America.

  In 1991 Guatemala recognised Belize as a sovereign and independent state; diplomatic relations were subsequently established and much progress has been made since then towards a normal bilateral relationship. The time has now come for the British military presence in Belize to evolve, to reflect the improvements in the regional political and security picture and in the very welcome and encouraging developments in Belize/Guatemala relations. Accordingly, over the next year or so, the garrison will be gradually reduced. At the request of and with the agreement of the Government of Belize, the British military presence will take the form of a training operation for United Kingdom troops. The formal responsibility for the defence of Belize will pass from British forces to the Belize defence force at a date to be announced in due course. Britain stands ready to play a part in any consultations that the Belize authorities may request on Belize's future security.

  The British troop presence in Belize is of long standing. Her Majesty's Government welcome the developments in Belize's bilateral and regional relationships which permit this evolution of the British troop presence. Her Majesty's Government have assisted since Belizean independence in 1981 with the development of the Belize defence force — BDF—through the provision of loan service personnel,
  562
  equipment, training and advice. We will maintain our programme of assistance to the BDF to sustain and improve the force's capability. Belize will, of course, also continue to be a beneficiary under Britain's bilateral aid programme.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the health situation in relation to marasmus, kwashiokor, and malaria in Iraq; and what response he has made to the latest Harvard study of the medical situation in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 12 May 1993]: We are aware of reports that the general standard of health in Iraq continues to decline as a result of the failure of the Government of Iraq to use their existing resources for the benefit of those in need in Iraq. I have not seen a copy of any recent Harvard study.

HEALTH

  Abortions
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of NHS abortions is provided through agency arrangements,(a) nationally and (b) for each district health authority;

  (2) which district health authorities have agency arrangements for the provision of NHS abortions.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library. For reasons of confidentiality, statistics for district health authorities are presented by DNA of woman's usual residence, not by DHA of termination.

  Agency arrangements for provision of national health service abortions are agreed between individual DHAs and the private sector. They are set up to provide for the needs of the DHA's resident population. Central receipt of the notification of dates when agency arrangements come into effect, and when they are dissolved, can be subject to delay and therefore the figures should be interpreted with caution.

  AZT
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a list of all the fully completed research on the effects of AZT on patients with either ARC or AIDS distinguishing the research that shows conclusively that AZT is of benefit in such cases.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Licensing Authority receives reports of fully completed research as part of a licensing application. The information relating to licensing applications is confidential in accordance with section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968. However, most of the extensive research has been published in the scientific literature and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what grounds the drug AZT was given fast-track licensing by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The licence application for Retrovir (AZT) was given fast-track status by the Licensing
  563
  Authority on the grounds that it was considered to be a potential major advance in the treatment of AIDS patients. At the time of the decision in late 1986 there was no alternative licensed product for the treatment of AIDS. The decision to fast-track the application was made solely on public health grounds.

  The fast-tracking of an application means that it is assessed out of turn, but is still subject to the full standard assessment process. The criteria for granting fast-track status to an application was set out in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton). the then Secretary of State, to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on 3 November 1987 at column 703.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration is being given to the advertising and promotion campaign relating to AZT in respect of the application of the prescription medicines code of practice authority guidelines.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The application of the code of practice is a matter for the prescription medicines code of practice authority.

  Wellcome Foundation
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the meetings which took place from 1985 to 1988 between representatives of the Wellcome Foundation and her Department or with Ministers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There were 16 meetings with officials, and one with a Minister and officials on pharmaceutical price regulation scheme matters and related business. There was also a number of meetings with officials of the then medicines division, now the Medicines Control Agency, and the AIDS unit, covering a large number of issues, but it is possible to quantify these only at disproportionate cost.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 February,Official Report, columns 159–60, how many of the (a) anti-diarrhoeal drugs, (b) appetite suppressants, (c) medicines for the treatment of vaginal and vulval conditions and (d) drugs for the treatment of soft tissue inflammation currently available on the national health service have been the subject of letters to manufacturers by the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs in respect of the proposed extension of the limited list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Advisory Committee on Drugs is an independent committee. It would not be appropriate at this stage to disclose information about the number of products which are the subject of discussions with manufacturers in relation to the proposed extension of the selected list scheme.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect of the implementation of the Food Safety Act 1990 on the incidence of salmonella; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The reported levels of salmonella are affected by a number of factors. These may include 564
  increased reporting of foodborne illness, changes in eating patterns and in food handling and hygiene practices. It is therefore extremely difficult to quantify the effect of the implementation of the Food Safety Act as against these other factors.

  Welfare Food Outlets
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the likely effect of placing restrictions on the outlets for welfare food and child vitamin supplements on the take-up of these products.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The outlets which may supply these products remain those listed in the Welfare Food Amendment Regulations 1988.

  Environmental Health Prosecutions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 4 March,Official Report, column 217, what plans she has to revise the collection of statistics to make it possible to evaluate the percentage of successful prosecutions brought by environmental health officers.

  Mr. Sackville
  The statistics enable a comparison to be made between the number of establishments prosecuted under the Food Safety Act 1990 and subordinate legislation and the number of successful convictions. However, it is not possible to determine those taken by environmental health officers. We have no plans to change the form of the statistics which are based on EC requirements.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's estimate of(a) the number of persons who contracted hepatitis C following blood transfusions in the period January 1989 to September 1991, (b) how many of these persons have pursued legal action against the Blood Transfusion Service or any other body in respect of the contraction of post-transfusion hepatitis C and (c) what is the average length of time taken for the settlement of these claims.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available for the Department to make such an estimate. No legal action has been brought against the Department by any person alleging to have contracted hepatitis C through blood transfusion during the specified period.

  Information is not available centrally about any actions brought against health authorities.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has on a link between the problem of extreme long sight in children and the administration of the MMR vaccine; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is not aware of any evidence for such a link.

  Mr. Mohammed Saeed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 4 May,Official Report, column 65, what safeguards have been introduced, following her departmental inquiry into matters relating to Mohammed Saeed, to prevent unqualified persons from becoming general practitioners; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mr. Saeed was granted full registration by the General Medical Council in 1961 on the basis of reciprocal agreements with overseas medical schools in place at that time. These agreements are now more restricted in scope and the council's registration procedures have been considerably tightened up. The Department recently issued guidance (EL(92)84) to national health service-employing authorities and family health services authorities reminding them of the need to be sure that procedures for employing doctors involve checks which confirm that they are registered with the General Medical Council and that their registration certificates cover the tasks they are expected to undertake. A copy of the guidance is available in the Library.

  Children (Illnesses)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children of each sex aged under 18 years were recorded as having(a) diabetes, (b) asthma, (c) hayfever, (d) eczema and (e) allergic rhinitis in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the extent to which environmental health officers distinguish clearly between good practice and legal requirements in accordance with the codes issued under section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The small number of cases which come to the attention of the Department does not enable us to make an assessment of the extent to which environmental health officers distinguish clearly between good practice and legal requirements. Department of Health officials take every opportunity to emphasise the importance of this distinction—through training courses for EHOs, conferences, seminars, and work with the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the local authorities co-ordinating body on food and trading standards. In addition, the Department wrote, on 6 May, to all chief EHOs in England reminding them of the need to make this distinction. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library.

  Medical Specialists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the number of new specialists needed to implement fully the report of the working group on specialist medical training and of the real-term cost implications of these new specialists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The report has been issued for consultation so that any decisions on implementation can 566
  be taken in the light of comments from all interested parties. Work on the resource implications will be taken forward as part of the consultative process with the objective of implementing any changes without increasing national health service pay bills beyond existing plans.

  Maternity Claims
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many maternity claim forms were submitted by general practitioners in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the ratio of operations done by consultants to doctors in the training grades in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Rubella
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were born with congenital rubella syndrome in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of cases of confirmed or suspected congenital rubella reported to the national congenital rubella surveillance programme is shown in the table:

  Year of birth

  Registered by January 1993

  1979

  not available

  1980

  36

  1981

  16

  1982

  38

  1983

  68

  1984

  52

  1985

  24

  1986

  29

  1987

  40

  1988

  22

  1989

  13

  1990

  11

  1991

  2

  1992

  16

  1 Includes a set of triplets.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the number of district health authorities which do not provide a comprehensive immunisation service for rubella in schools for girls aged 10 to 14 years.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those health authorities which have stopped their programmes of rubella injections at school premises, together with the year in which the programme ceased.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government policy is that all girls between their 10th and 14th birthdays should be immunised with single antigen rubella vaccine unless there is documented evidence that they have received measles,
  567
  mumps and rubella vaccine already. It is for individual health authorities to decide how best to implement this policy; most currently do so through a schools immunisation programme.

  The Department of Health does not routinely collect information about local arrangements. However, the Public Health Laboratory Service is to undertake a survey shortly which will establish what arrangements are in place.

  Community Care
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her best estimate for the time taken to assess the needs of a patient under the new community care programme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Assessment procedures need to be matched to individual circumstances and will, therefore, vary considerably in length and complexity. We have made it clear to local authorities that assessment processes should be as simple, quick and efficient as possible so that people get the care they need when they need it.

  Child Protection Register
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of children of each sex on the child protection register in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information available is shown in the table. Information was not collected centrally before 1988.

  Number of children on child protection registers in England at 31 March

  Year

  Boys

  Girls

  11988

  18,700

  20,500

  1989

  19,700

  21,400

  1990

  21,100

  22,500

  1991

  22,200

  23,100

  21992

  18,800

  19,800

  1 Results of a pilot survey.

  2 Provisional.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Diphtheria
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of diphtheria have been reported in each of the last 20 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Notified cases of Diphtheria

  England and Wales

  1972–91

  Number

  1972

  4

  1973

  2

  1974

  3

  1975

  11

  1976

  2

  1977

  2

  1978

  0

  1979

  0

  1980

  5

  1981

  2

  1982

  4

  1983

  4

  1984

  4

  568

  Number

  1985

  4

  1986

  4

  1987

  2

  1988

  1

  1989

  2

  1990

  2

  1991

  2

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the use of ministerial cars for travel from home to the normal place of employment is regarded for tax purposes by the Department as private use that is merely incidental to the business use of the ministerial car.

  Mr. Sackville
  Yes.

  Disabled Staff
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the work force employed by the national health service within each English health region is registered disabled.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Tables showing the number and percentage of registered disabled persons employed by a wide range of public sector employers, including regional health authorities, district health authorities and national health service trusts, are published annually in the Employment Gazette. The figures are published with the agreement of the employers concerned.

  The latest figures relating to June 1992 are in the April 1993 edition of the Gazette, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of registered disabled people working within her Department and the national health service management executive; what percentage of the total work force of these two bodies this number represents; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  At 11 May 1993, 73 registered disabled people were employed by the Department; this represents 1.4 per cent. of the work force. This includes nine registered disabled people employed in the national health service management executive, representing 1 per cent. of its work force.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the practice of the chief executive of the national health service management executive on response times to correspondence from hon. Members; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chief executive of the national health service management executive treats all correspondence from hon. Members as a matter of priority and aims to provide a reply as quickly as possible. All letters are acknowledged immediately and a full reply is provided as soon as necessary inquiries are completed.

  Diamorphine
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued by her Department to general practitioners and hospitals with regard to the use of the drug diamorphine.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Diamorphine is a controlled drug under schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985. Its supply and prescription are therefore subject to certain controls, which are described in the British National Formulary, which is distributed twice a year free of charge to all prescribers by the Department of Health. A copy of the British National Formulary is available in the Library.

  Prescribing information on the use of diamorphine is given to general practitioners and hospitals in the British National Formulary and in data sheets for products, issued by the manufacturers and authorised by the Licensing Authority. Guidance is also contained in the "Guide to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971" and the Misuse of Drugs Regulations.

  Quarry House
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the cost of building Quarry house in Leeds and (b) the cost of landscaping around Quarry house.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total costs of building Quarry house are £55·5 million. This includes the costs of landscaping those areas which are not the responsibility of Leeds city council.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Waste Storage
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions the Atomic Weapons Establishment or other Ministry of Defence personnel have held with Atomic Energy Authority Technology in the last 10 years regarding the possibility of utilising its low-level waste storage sites at either Harwell or Dounreay.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Atomic Weapons Establishment has not had any discussions with AEA(T) in the last 10 years regarding the possibility of utilising its low-level waste storage sites at either Harwell or Dounreay. However, other branches of my Department currently make use of the storage and disposal facilities available at Harwell and Dounreay.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the exact role and function of(a) radiological protection advisory group staff and (b) operational health physicist staff, employed at AWE Aldermaston as referred to in the oral evidence to the Select Committee on Defence at HC 479 of Session 1989–90 Q. 10ff, p.2; and if he will list (i) the numbers of these staff employed at AWE Aldermaston in each year since 1970 and (ii) the shortfall in the numbers of these staff in each of those years.

  Mr. Aitken
  The role and function of AWE radiological protection advisory group staff is to provide advice and support in the areas of radiation dosimetry, radiological requirements for new and operating facilities, monitoring 570
  of the environment for radioactive materials, nuclear safety hazards assessments, and responses to radiological incidents.

  The role and function of the AWE operational health physics staff is to provide advice on operational health physics aspects of the work undertaken at AWE and also to provide a comprehensive radiological monitoring service for all work undertaken at AWE. Details of the numbers of staff employed during the period 1970–1992 are not held in the form requested, and to provide them would require disproportionate time and cost. However, since the report by Sir Edward Pochin in 1978, the total number of radiological protection staff and health physicist staff has increased by a factor of three.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), of 2 March,Official Report, column 111, if he will list the detailed actions identified by Sir Edward Pochin following his review of radiological health and safety at Aldermaston.

  Mr. Aitken
  The detailed actions to which I referred in my answer of 2 March were compiled by AWE—then AWRE—management as a result of the scrutiny of Sir Edward Pochin's report, rather than by Sir Edward Pochin himself. This was an internal management report which, in accordance with our usual practice, has not been released for publication.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 6 November,Official Report, column 530, whether the project definition study into the scope of work needed to overcome the corrosion problems of the A91 complex at Aldermaston is now complete; what is the estimated date he now expects A91 to be fully operational; and if he will place a copy of the A91 project definition study in the Library.

  Mr. Aitken
  The project definition study into the A91 corrosion problems has been completed. The study has identified a range of options and these are currently being evaluated. Until these options have been fully studied, it is not possible to give a forecast date for the facility to become fully operational. The project definition study report contains commercially sensitive information and it would not be appropriate for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on each of the(a) major injuries, (b) other injuries, (c) dangerous occurrences and (d) cases of disease, as defined in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985—SI, 1985, No. 2023—reported to the Health and Safety Executive by AWE Aldermaston during (a) 1976, (b) 1981, (c) 1984 and (d)

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 138 incidents for illness/injury and dangerous occurrences were reported to the Health and Safety Executive, as defined in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985, SI, 1985, No. 2023, by AWE Aldermaston in the years 1976, 1981, 1984 and 1987. Further details of these incidents are as follows: 1976—(a) major injuries (total three)—two fractured fibula; one fractured scafoid (b) other injuries (total 32)—10 falls;

  571
  four back injuries; seven hand injuries; three stepping on or striking objects; two falls of objects; one facial acid burn; one burns to hands; one dislocated knee; one eye injury; one hernia; one sports injury (c) dangerous occurrences (total one)—one contamination incident and (d) cases of disease (total nil). 1981—(a) major injuries (total four)—one fractured humerus; one fractured radius; two fractured bones (b) other injuries (total 32)—12 falls; eight back pain; five stepping on or striking objects; three road traffic accident; two sports; one fall of object; one handling (c) dangerous occurrences (total nil) and (d) cases of disease (total nil). 1984—(a) major injuries (total one)—one fractured shoulder (b) other injuries (total 22)—10 falls; three road traffic accidents; three back pain; one sports; one fatigue; one splinter in finger; two falls of objects; one cut from handtool (c) dangerous occurrences (total one)—one contamination incident and (d) cases of disease (total nil). 1987 (a)—major injuries (total three)—two fractured wrists; one fractured ribs (b) other injuries (total 38)—14 falls; nine back injuries; four handling; four sports; one fall of objects; two stepping on or striking objects; one eye injury; one handtool injury; one road traffic accident; one damaged ribs (c) dangerous occurrences (total one)—leakage from effluent pipeline and (d) cases of disease (total nil).

  Waste Management
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department in tackling the issues listed in paragraph 6.9, page 79 of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Council 12th annual report of 1991.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has a number of research programmes in hand to address the issues to which the hon. Member refers.

  Contracts
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of. State for Defence what proportion of defence contracts to his Department are provided from(a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) abroad, respectively; and if he will publish an annual figure in each case.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to tables 1.11 and 1.13 of "Defence Statistics", 1992 edition, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Explosives
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigation will be made regarding the explosive device found in the sea off Coll; if the results of the inquiry will be published; what steps have been taken to inform and protect west coast fishermen, Caledonian MacBrayne and merchant shipping operating in the area of the risks from explosive devices; if he will give details of the type of ordnance recovered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Investigation has established that the item in question was an inert training device. Though the device contained a quantity of detonating cord, this posed no appreciable risk to fishermen or to shipping. These devices are usually recovered after each exercise.

  Navy Commanders (Re-employment)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any former Royal Navy commander now employed by Rolls-Royce and Associates has been hired back by the MOD, Navy Department, to carry out the same duties that he previously discharged as an officer in the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No, but a Rolls-Royce and Associates employee, a former Royal Navy commander previously involved in the management of the Trident works facilities at the Clyde submarine base, Faslane, has been engaged to provide some essential short-term assistance to the Department's shiplift project team.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the number of British troops currently serving under the United Nations flag in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) on 20 April,Official Report, column 165.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civilian and (b) military patients were treated in each of the last three years for which figures are available at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  In Patients

  Military

  4,785

  4,848

  4,882

  Civilian

  8,288

  7,657

  5,909

  Out Patients

  Military

  10,596

  12,071

  7,987

  Civilian

  15,258

  13,312

  12,931

  Munitions Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) of 22 April,Official Report, column 191, if he will publish as much information in regard to the shipping of munitions in the eastern Mediterranean on his Department's behalf as can be given without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally within the Department and no information can be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of his Department in respect of the proposed design and height of the Skye bridge, with
  573
  particular reference to any emergency defence planning provisions which may arise involving the passage under the bridge of the largest naval vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has been fully consulted over the specifications for the Skye bridge and is content that the design and height of the bridge is consistent with defence requirements for passage of the Kyle of Lochalsh.

  Personnel (Eastern Europe)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) of 22 April,Official Report, column 191, if he will estimate the total number of serving personnel together with members of their families in (a) Germany, (b) Poland, (c) Lithuania, (d) Latvia, (e) Estonia; (f) Georgia and (g) Moldavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In addition to the numbers of Russian military personnel stationed in Germany, Poland, the Baltic Republic and Georgia I gave in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on 22 April,Official Report, column 191, there are some 9,000 personnel stationed in Moldavia. The number of family members will be in proportion to the size of the forces, but it is not possible to provide an accurate estimate.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 149, whether the United Nations will be reimbursing the costs of transporting the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment's Warrior armoured vehicles to Bosnia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Nations assumed financial responsibility for UNPROFOR operations in Bosnia with effect from 1 April 1993. The handling of individual cost elements will be a matter for negotiation.

  HMS Avenger
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the proposed visit of HMS Avenger to Chile was cancelled; what would have been the additional fuel cost involved; what was the purpose of the proposed visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It had originally been planned that HMS Avenger would return from patrol in the south Atlantic via the Pacific ocean and Panama canal, and that she would take the opportunity to pay an informal, goodwill visit to Chile later this month. In the light of constraints on fuel usage and of higher priority claims on the fleet's resources, including commitments in the Adriatic, however, it was decided Avenger should return directly to the United Kingdom via the Atlantic saving fuel costs of around £140,000.

  The cancellation of the visit to Chile has not affected the close relations which exist between the Royal Navy and the Chilean Navy. Royal Navy ships have visited Chile regularly in the past and will continue to do so.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current total estimated cost of(a) the development and (b) the production of the European fighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish the latest estimates of the costs associated with the European fighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The current estimated cost of EF2000 development to the United Kingdom is some £3·4 billion. Production is likely to cost £8·3 billion at current prices. The estimated total project cost, comprising the costs of development, production and integrated logistic support, is some £13·1 billion. After allowances made for inflation, the real increase in project costs since the start of development is less than 10 per cent., which is unwelcome but not unexpected for a collaborative project of this magnitude and technical complexity.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current estimated maintenance costs for one European fighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not possbile to be certain about the operating cost, including maintenance and repair, until a substantial number of development flying hours have been accumulated. However, the contractual specification for the aircraft calls for a significantly better level of reliability than for current RAF in-service aircraft.

  Belize
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of military helicopters in Belize in relation to the incident in early April involving Guatemalan intruders stealing mahogany trees from Belize territory.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It appears that this relatively minor incident involved trees illegally felled in Guatemala. The commander British forces Belize authorised the use of military helicopters to transport service personnel and to visit the area in question accompanied by representatives of Belizean agencies involved. Belize defence force deployments were by means of their own transport aircraft. I understand that the Belizean and Guatemalan Governments have resolved the incident to their mutual satisfaction.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual expenditure of the WEU, and the United Kingdom's total budget contributions to this expenditure; what forecasts have been made of future expenditure and of the United Kingdom contribution towards it; and how much is attributable to the costs connected with its move to Brussels, including the provision of buildings and other facilities there.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  At current rates of exchange, the WEU budget for 1993 is £24·1 million. The United Kingdom share of this is £4·1 million. Forecast expenditure for 1994 is £22·7 million, of which the United Kingdom share will be £3·86 million.
  575
  The total budgeted cost of the transfer of the WEU secretariat to Brussels, including the provision of buildings and facilities, was £4·55 million, of which the United Kingdom share was £773,000.

  Army Pay and Personnel Unit
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many sites are currently being considered for the new location of the Army pay and personnel unit;

  (2) how many military and civilian posts will be allocated to the Army pay and personnel unit.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on 4 March,Official Report, column 229, I announced that representations received during the consultation period which followed the decision to locate the Army personnel centre in Glasgow would be considered before final decisions were made. A detailed review of the available options has been undertaken and I am now in a position to report the outcome. The review was conducted against the requirement that the Army personnel centre, comprising some 1,300 military and civilian personnel, should be located in the vicinity of one of the six existing Army manning, record and pay offices at Glasgow, Chester, York, Leicester, Ashton-under-Lyne and Exeter. The opportunity was also taken to review what alternative existed to a new purchase or lease of office accommodation.

  The review considered all the options against common criteria and in particular all the costs involved, which in the case of existing commercial buildings included both the
  576
  initial purchase price and costs of modification and any minor build required. The outcome was to show that the total cost of locating the Army personnel centre in existing Ministry of Defence office accommodation in Glasgow at Kentigern house would be some £6 million; that the overall cost of the building in Stockport referred to in my answer on 4 March would be some £15 million; that of the commercial building in Glasgow which formed the original proposal some £25 million; and the total cost of other options for an existing commercial building or new build would be in the range between £14 million and £24 million. Accordingly, in view of the significant saving over other options, I have concluded that, subject to consultation with the trades unions, siting the centre in Kentigern house represents the best possible value for money. The aim will be to complete the relocation during 1995.

  Kentigern house was purpose built to Ministry of Defence requirements; with some modification to its internal layout, returning the building to open plan office space, together with the application of new office space guidelines, it will be possible to meet the key requirements of the Army personnel centre. The accommodation will be sufficient to house the centre in its entirety, and with the additional flexibility offered by Wellesley house, all MOD staff based in Glasgow will be accommodated satisfactorily. A consultative document has been prepared and is being passed to the trades unions. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The consultation period will last until 25 June and I hope to make a final decision shortly after that taking into account the representations received.

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

Foot and Mouth Disease
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that sufficient resources are available to prevent the introduction and spread of foot and mouth disease.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, yes, the state veterinary service has at is disposal the resources necessary to enforce statutory import controls and to deal quickly and effectively with an outbreak of foot and mouth disease should one occur.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept my observation that the Minister of Agriculture acted extremely swiftly to deal with the possibility of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease which arose from the recent importation from the European Community of cattle with falsified veterinary certificates, although I understand that all the cattle have not yet been traced? Does he agree that the advent of the single market and the consequent abandonment of veterinary controls at our ports make us extremely vulnerable to the importation of all livestock diseases, not just foot and mouth disease, and thereby puts at risk the extremely high animal health status that this country enjoys from being an island?
Earl Howe: My Lords I am grateful for the noble Lord's remarks about the Ministry's swift action in response to allegations that possible seropositive animals had entered this country. He may like to know that we have traced and tested some 860 animals to date and of those animals 260 have proved seropositive.
Trade in live animals and genetic materials is subject to strict animal health rules, requiring all consignments to be accompanied by health certification signed by an official veterinarian of the exporting country. Certification confirms compliance with the rules, which are designed to protect the importing country from diseases such as foot and mouth disease. In addition, under single market arrangements, veterinary checks are carried out at points of origin in the EC, supported by spot checks at points of destination. In the case of third country trade, documentary, physical and identity checks are carried out on all consignments on entry into the Community. If, despite those arrangements, an outbreak of serious disease should occur in Great Britain, contingency plans have been prepared to ensure that it is contained and stamped out as rapidly as possible.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we note what my noble friend said about the effect of our being in the single market. Can he confirm the hope that the Channel Tunnel will not lead to any extension of foot and mouth disease in this country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, under the old arrangements prior to the introduction of the single market we were always reliant on foreign veterinary services to inform us whether or not to issue an import licence. That was the old system. We now have a system with a much better degree of co-ordination between member states and a common approach. The recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Italy demonstrated that the new system works very well indeed. I hope I can reassure my noble friend that when the Channel Tunnel is opened there should be no diminution in the safeguards that are now in place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that I had the responsibility of implementing the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee on foot and mouth disease? Are the Government satisfied that those recommendations, as they were brought into force, are adequate to deal with the current problems and developments to which noble Lords referred, including the Channel Tunnel and the consequences of the single market?
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords, we are fully satisfied that the recommendations made in that report will be sufficient when they are implemented to protect us in the way in which the noble Lord clearly desires.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that I expressed my concern on this matter early last year? Can he say whether he believes that the position is in fact as secure as he suspects, as only spot checks are done on animals entering this country? Does he agree that it would be better to check all the animals coming into this country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I explained, we now have an automatic system of certification at point of origin within the Community. In due course that will be supplemented with a computerised record of animal movements within the Community to pre-warn the member state that will receive the animals. I am fully satisfied that we have a more secure system than the one we had before.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, to the extent that the government procedures rely on overseas certification at some point, will they bear in mind that within certain member states there is a level of corruption that is incompatible with the issue of proper certification? Will the noble Earl give the House an assurance that the Government have taken that factor into account?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government are very much aware of the incidence of fraud within the Community. But there is no evidence to date that veterinary surgeons in fellow member states have been subject to any degree of corruption whatsoever. In fact we have full confidence in their abilities to certify as

1363
necessary. Indeed, veterinary surgeons' qualifications are harmonised throughout the EC and have been since the 1970s.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the Minister has detailed the rules and regulations that apply to the movement of animals within the Community and, indeed, within greater Europe, but is he aware that veterinary authorities, especially in this country, lack confidence in the ability of some eastern countries to apply them in a satisfactory manner, both in regard to animals coming in from outside the European Community and within the Community itself?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend about our views on the qualifications and abilities of veterinary surgeons within the Community. As regards veterinary surgeons outside the Community, and in particular those in the Czech Republic and Poland, we are keeping the situation under review. Trade is only allowed subject to those countries providing strict additional safeguards which will prevent the spread of the disease.
A Noble Lord: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches has been trying to speak for some time.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, from my experience I hold the view that our present policy is the best within the Community. Is there any hope of persuading our counterparts in Europe to pursue a policy similar to ours, which is without doubt the best?
Earl Howe: My Lords, all other member states within the Community have fallen into line with our long-held policy of slaughter and stamping out foot and mouth disease should an outbreak occur rather than wholesale vaccination, which was previously their policy.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister believe that there is a possibility that lorry drivers, taking loads of calves from Ireland and Britain to European countries, may want to fill their lorries on the way back and buy cheap cattle of doubtful certification from third countries?
Earl Howe: My Lords, if that occurs, when entering the Community the animals would be subject to checks at the border and would be stopped if proper certification were not in place.

NHS Private Finance Initiative: Scrutiny
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the new measures announced on 21st April relating to private sector involvement in the NHS will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the private finance initiative was announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Autumn Statement. Use of private finance is encouraged where it gives the National Health Service best value for money. The Department of Health and the Treasury will continue to scrutinise business cases for large projects, while those for smaller ones will be scrutinised locally.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her full and detailed Answer. Is she aware that Mr. Tom Sackville, a junior Minister who sits in another place, last month made a Statement in which he disclosed that hospitals would be free to negotiate with firms for deals worth up to £10 million without the need for Treasury approval? The present limit is £225,000. Is not that an enormous increase to set loose without scrutiny? Bearing in mind the recent announcement that the Secretary of State is negotiating with Tesco and Marks & Spencer—a company which does not provide basic toilet facilities or a changing room for mothers with babies in its stores—are we not entering into partnership with some extremely strange people?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the National Health Service has strict scrutiny of its finances in terms of the Audit Commission, the National Audit Office and internal auditors, which every hospital and health authority must have. The Tesco scheme to which the noble Lord refers has not yet been agreed. The limits have been reduced. Where a case being submitted is either novel or contentious, then the Treasury would want to have a say in it.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the £225,000 limit on joint ventures between private companies and the health service was so small, on the basis that building costs are so expensive, that no private venture of any consequence ever took place? The result of increasing that limit to £10 million means that whole blocks of new capital from the private sector will be able to go into the health service. It will then be able to produce better funding and, as a result, infinitely better care for the patients who deserve it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Even as a chairman I remember being extremely frustrated by certain schemes which would be good for the private sector, the National Health Service and patients but which were not able to go ahead. With the additional flexibility being introduced, £2.1 billion extra capital finance will be available to the National Health Service this year.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, in the case of deals taking place—in order to obtain further capital for the health service—with companies like Tesco and Marks & Spencer in return for the right to build stores, the local planning authority will never be overridden on a question of planning for those stores?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, those cases will be treated as any other. Where the local planning authority has jurisdiction I am sure that it will come to the right conclusions.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State is going to the private sector because of the crazy way in which resources have been used, does the noble Baroness agree that the new Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, which Her Majesty the Queen is visiting today, was the wrong hospital on the wrong site costing a grossly over-inflated sum of money—£100 million more than the estimate? That decision was taken against a much more viable plan, including retaining hospital services in the Westminster area, which was put together by an all-party group of Peers, of which I had the honour to be chairman. Is it because of that sort of absurd incompetence that the Ministry feels it must go to the private sector?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords. The new Chelsea and Westminster Hospital is a very, very wonderful hospital. It is one of the best in Europe. I believe that it will provide the services that are necessary. It has made savings in terms of the rationalisation of other hospitals that has taken place. We are immensely proud of it and I have no doubt that it will provide the first-class service for which it was built.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness expecting the introduction of the private sector into the National Health Service to have similar beneficial effects to those of Group 4 in the prison service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we cherish our patients. We hope that we are not careless with them. But this is not a new idea. We have been working with the private sector for many years. This is just introducing flexibility into the rules. Market testing produces £125 million every year. That is the equivalent of running two 500-bedded hospitals.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in spite of the fact that the health service cherishes its patients, the present statements cannot be described simply as flexibility? Is she further aware that, in the light of some of the recent statements, the pledge of the Prime Minister at the 1991 Tory conference that,
"there will be no privatisation of health care, neither piecemeal, nor in part, nor as a whole, not today, not tomorrow, not ever while I am Prime Minister",
now sounds very hollow? In that context, will she agree that, following the Questions of my noble friend Lord Dean both today and yesterday, it really is important that, if private companies are to be brought into the health care system, procedures for accountability are put in place before that private investment is made rather than, as we have seen in the Wessex debacle, in retrospect pulled out by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Commission some time after the event?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this is certainly not privatisation. It is the use of private finance to aid the National Health Service. This brings more resources to the service; it ensures that people get good value for money; and it increases the enormous amount that we already put into the National Health Service—£4 million every hour. Of course there has to be very careful monitoring of the schemes; and I explained earlier on in answer to a previous question from the noble Lord, Lord Dean, exactly how we were going to do that.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister make every endeavour to carry along all the staff associations of the NHS? Anything that could come out of the scheme, whether it is privatisation or anything else, is bound to affect all the staff of our NHS. Will she give the House an assurance that they will be consulted at all times?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, of course we try to work with the staff in the National Health Service. They are our greatest resource.
Lord Desai: My Lords, if, as the Minister says, borrowing money from the private sector is not privatisation, what, in her view, is privatisation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, privatisation is when we abandon the ethic of the National Health Service, which is that people—whether they are rich, old, young, poor, black or white—should get their services free at the point of use. That is the ethic of the National Health Service. If that ethic was abandoned, it would be privatisation.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether in future NHS patients who are treated in the private sector will still be able to complain to the Health Service Commissioner if they consider that they have suffered injustice as a result of maladministration?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. They will be part of the National Health Service if the National Health Service is paying for their treatment.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not true that we have expanded health service expenditure from £7 billion when we came to power to £36 billion—an increase of 42 per cent. in real terms? Has my noble friend received any constructive ideas from the Opposition as to what is to be done to find the money, without putting taxes up immensely, to meet the expanding needs of more people living longer, more medical progress and therefore more changes in services? What has been proposed positively by the Opposition?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, very little that I can recommend.

Organophosphate Poisoning
3.25 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the work of various research groups into the long-term effects of organophosphate poisoning on humans is co-ordinated.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive has initiated meetings of the main UK research groups concerned with the long-term effects of organophosphate poisoning on humans to ensure co-ordination of the work.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the gracious way in which he always gives me a full answer to my questions, both written and oral. He is indeed a gentleman. Will he bear in mind that the object of my questions is to help people who are currently suffering from organophosphate poisoning and to prevent future suffering? Will he please say why, in spite of the letter that I have had from the Health and Safety Executive, Dr. Jamal at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow has not yet been contacted? There seems to be no co-ordination with people who are actually suffering; there has been no epidemiological study; and there seems to be a flat refusal to undertake any study on the dangers of inhalation. The manufacturers say in their data sheets that there is a danger from inhalation and yet they are not prepared to take action on the matter.
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is, as the noble Countess will know, a plethora of research being undertaken at the moment funded by the Government and other bodies. We are awaiting the results of that research. Interim results, at the very least, should be available by October when the VPC is due to meet again to complete its review of OP products. With regard to the risk of inhalation, the Government have consistently accepted the advice of the Veterinary Products Committee. That advice is reflected in the new safety leaflet which we are in the course of distributing this week. The advice has been consistent over the years. It is up to each individual farmer to undertake a COSHH assessment prior to a dipping operation so as to identify any particular hazards which may need to be addressed. In some circumstances respiratory equipment may be necessary.
Lord Carter: My Lords, since a study in the Lancet as long ago as 1961 showed the chronic effects of OP poisoning and exposure on farmers and others, and as they are exactly the same effects as we are seeing now—this was backed up by a guidance note from the Health and Safety Executive in 1987—does the Minister agree that a lack of co-ordination of research and a lack of funding may well have contributed to the problems that we now face?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not accept that. The initial reports that we had in the 1950s and 1960s were concerned with worker safety at that time when
1368
agricultural and chemical products were at a far less sophisticated stage of development. In those early days products coming on to the market were not subject to prior government approval and the manufacturing process did not contain the same safeguards against impurities as it does now. I believe that we have responded to current concerns with speed and with the necessary funding.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how many people are now suffering from the results of organophosphate poisoning?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not have precise figures. But if they are obtainable, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl again why there has been no epidemiological study, which is a study of the number of people suffering from organophosphate poisoning? Why are the Government consistently refusing, even when they are offered help, to carry out such a study? There is a wealth of information out there. People who are suffering know how they originally became contaminated and what treatment helps them best. I ask the Minister again, please, to look again at this matter.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall look again at the point which the noble Countess raises. The HSE has commissioned a number of pieces of research: first of all, into the possible chronic neuro-psychological effects of occupational exposure to OP products in sheep farmers and, secondly, into the frequency and severity of pesticide poisoning incidents and whether they can result in long-term health effects. As I am sure the noble Countess will agree, those are the crucial questions. It is the results from that research, at least on an interim basis, which we hope to have later in the year.

National Vocational Qualifications
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that industrial organisations are making adequate progress towards the attainment of national vocational qualifications.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the framework of national vocational qualifications is an essential part of the Government's training strategy. This framework now covers over 80 per cent. of the employed population at levels 1 to 4. The Government are satisfied that good progress is being made towards the attainment of those qualifications by people in work.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the noble Viscount is a gentleman too. Has he noted the findings of a recent survey carried out of 171 organisations by Industrial Relations Services Limited in which it was found that only one in 35 employees was working towards a national or Scottish vocational qualification and that

1369
only one in 80 had attained such a qualification? If those figures are anything like representative of the overall position, does not the noble Viscount agree that, to say the least, they are most disturbing? Can he say what action, if any, is being taken to improve the position?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, over 300,000 full NVQs have been awarded to date. A number of organisations have a role to play in promoting NVQs. They include the NCVQ and industry training organisations as well as government and business. Much has already been done to promote NVQs within industries. A high profile national publicity campaign was not appropriate until NVQs were widely available. But a major campaign to put NVQs on the map was launched by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment this very morning. National advertising will follow in the autumn.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, can the Minister say which body is responsible for verifying the standards of training organisations to allow them to participate in the vocational qualification schemes?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we use a number of bodies for verification. Perhaps I may mention three as examples. They are the City, and Guilds, BTEC and the RSA. They also give an important quality assurance measure so that NVQs can be appreciated by all employers.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government are very complacent about this matter and that the situation is perhaps worse than revealed by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester? For example, is the Minister further aware that senior and middle management take hardly any part in those courses? Perhaps even more important, employers are now saying that the courses themselves and the qualifications are not relevant to their needs. Does not the Minister agree that there is hardly anything more important than that? Finally, is the Minister aware that budgets are now being quite severely cut for training in large organisations?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I certainly would not agree with the last point which the noble Lord made. The budgets for training are holding up extremely well. Of course, it is very important that employers should know what their employees can do and what is expected of them at work. The possession of a NVQ indicates that an employee has achieved that standard of competence and therefore employers can have confidence in potential employees who have NVQs, irrespective of where the qualification was obtained.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a recent survey, which I believe was published in the Financial Times, indicates that TEC leaders are very dissatisfied with the situation and with the level of support which they have been receiving from the Government? Does that not indicate perhaps that that is a contributory factor to lower NCVQ attainment? Does not the Minister agree
1370
that something should be done about that? This is not the first time that the issue has been raised from this Dispatch Box.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, TECs are very much involved in the implementation of NVQs. In fact they are funded to put a plan of implementation forward, so they are closely involved. They are also closely involved in the assessment of prior learning. It would be wrong to suggest that because the workforce does not have NVQs it is not qualified. It is because it has a whole range of qualifications—it is the standardisation of that range which is so important—that we are promoting NVQs in the way I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that a great deal of money has gone into the development of NVQs and that, if they are to be good, it will take a great deal of money to pilot the schemes and test them? Does the Minister further agree that it will be a great pity to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar if the money is not there in order to market them? The evidence is that there are a great many people who do not know what the initials mean and the schemes are not being taken advantage of, not only by employees but employers, because of sheet ignorance. Does the noble Viscount accept that what is needed is a firm, well-financed marketing campaign to get the scheme over? I declare an interest as chairman of an administrative body.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I entirely agree with the comments which the noble Baroness has made. It is important that the development of the framework should take place in a controlled manner. We have looked to industry training organisations. Where they have been the lead bodies for the formulation of NVQs—which they carry out with the backing of industry and employers—I believe that that means that the framework we have should be well respected by employers and that they will make good use of the schemes. Just because it has taken a little time for NVQs to be well known, I do not believe that the publicity we are now undertaking over a period of two years—because that is how long the campaign which started today will take—will not make them very well known in future.

Business
3.37 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 Fire Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, the Family Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 and the Family Law (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1993 will be taken.

Whitsun Recess
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday 27th May and return on Monday 7th June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 27th May.

Business of the House
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to he taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Disability Grants Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Monday 17th May.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this is a money Bill and whether that is the reason for this Motion?
Lord Wakeham: Yes, my Lords. It has been certified by the Speaker in that way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill
3.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 287BA:
After Clause 246, insert the following new clause:
("Information on provision of goods and services
.—(I) The governing body of any grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school shall in accordance with any regulations made by the Secretary of State make available at the commencement of each academic year to any parent or guardian of any pupil admitted to the school (and on request to any other parent of a pupil registered at the school) information falling within subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) The information referred to in subsection (1) above shall include any statement made in accordance with section 265(4) below by a local education authority which has in the previous academic year supplied goods and services to the school concerning contracts for the supply of such goods and services and any period over which such contracts might have effect.
(3) The information referred to in subsection (1) above shall also include whether any local education authority other than that in whose area the school is situated has in the previous academic year supplied goods and services to the school in accordance with section 265 below.").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 299ZA, 299BA and 300ZA. There are two strands involved here. The first is a matter of the information that we
1372
feel that parents ought to receive concerning the goods and services that are available to their children's grant-maintained school from the local education authority. The second deals with the question of those goods and services themselves and the stipulations for them which the Government are putting forward in this Bill. This strand brings in the other amendments that are grouped with mine.
Let us look at Clause 265 as printed. In the normal way local authorities may supply goods and services, for example to schools, but only within their existing spare capacity; under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, an LEA is not permitted to retain staff and operate any services which go beyond what it requires for the efficient exercise of its own functions within its own area. This is called trading at the margin of capacity, and it is an ill-defined area where the Audit Commission takes a restrictive line and the courts have never yet pronounced.
What the Government are proposing under Clause 265 is a relaxation of this rule. We welcome this. But before we get too excited about it we must be aware of the restrictions that are to be imposed. An LEA will only be able to trade beyond the margins, first, when the Secretary of State by order says it can, and specifies which services; secondly, for a period of two years thereafter; thirdly, in its own or adjacent area, again as specified by the Secretary of State; and, fourthly, at full cost. It is with some, but not all, of these stipulations that we see some difficulty. I think that it is fair to say that the great majority of local councils (of whatever complexion) are deeply worried about them and have made their views known.
"Goods and services" is a wonderfully nondescript phrase. We are talking here about county music services, in all their richness and variety; about out-of-school drama; about the schools library service; about in-service training, career development for teachers, and all the networks of professional advice and support; about legal advice on school matters, and about personnel advice; about maintenance, repair, cleaning, catering; about school transport; about educational psychology and welfare. They are not just the optional extras—except I suppose in a world where the Back to Basics lobby has taken total control. They are part of the fabric of our children's education, and in the brave new world which is being ushered in the parents of the future, as they make their choice of school, will want to know whether and for how long these services will be available from the sources that have supplied them, on the whole successfully, up until now. This is what Amendment No. 287BA, with its cross-reference to Clause 265 (4) in Amendment No. 300ZA, is all about.
I said that we saw some difficulty with Clause 265 as it stands, with its four main restrictions. The chief problems appear to be these.
As schools opt out, so the operational base of the LEA declines and it becomes harder and harder to maintain a viable core of services. Diseconomies of scale begin to make themselves felt. "Well, good", say the Government, who want to see LEAs wither and perish. But there are children in LEA schools as well as in the GM schools who might want to buy in these

1373
services, and these children are bound to suffer if services decline in quantity and quality. That should concern us all.
The Government hope and expect that a thriving market will come into being to replace the local authorities. In some areas, and in some services, I dare say it will. But in others, notably in rural areas and where specifically educational expertise is called for, it will not be so straightforward. What if no market emerges in some of these areas—or no quality market—or at least no market within the specified two years? This is more than likely. What of the schools that only opt out after the two-year period has run? These are serious objections to the Government's plans as drafted.
It is claimed that, where gaps exist, schools themselves will be able to band together into co-operatives to supply the services. Well, it is a possibility. My scepticism springs from experience of schools getting together for these kinds of purpose in the past. It has often been tried, and it has not often worked. Schools are so different from each other (despite what many people think): each has its own agenda, which becomes all too apparent when the going gets tough. They may be attractive on paper, but arrangements of this kind so easily come apart at the seams, however enthusiastically they start. And we must remember that schools are now being set more and more in competition with each other, which is likely to make future co-operation even more problematic. And, again, in rural areas things will never be easy. An awful lot of schools would have to come together to produce the quality and economy of some of the LEA services they would be replacing.
I can foresee a difficulty with the Secretary of State's order which is to bring this clause into play. When will he know to make it? No one knows for certain at what point an authority is going beyond its margin: there are no certain definitions here; red lights do not begin to flash. What if he gets it wrong, which is not unlikely? Schools of all kinds will suffer.
Just as important—and it is curious to be making this point to a market-orientated Government—there is the issue of choice. Why should schools not purchase their goods and services from whomever they choose? Knock out the most experienced player, and you will ensure that in some areas children will get second-best. One odd effect will be that schools that remain with their LEA will be able to choose between their local services and the private sector, whereas grant-maintained schools can only choose the latter. Many schools in fact went grant-maintained in the full expectation that they would be able to continue to trade with their LEA.
On this point of choice, let me quote from a number of interested parties. First, the National Confederation of Parent-Teachers Associations:
"This is an area where parents have come forward in numbers to voice the desire to keep services under LEA responsibility safe for the future, eg school library service, peripatetic music teaching. They believe these services will disappear along with other much needed services in the name of cost effectiveness".
Next, the Association of Heads of Grant Maintained Schools:
1374
"AHGMS is uncertain about the reasoning behind the proposal that local authorities should be restricted over the services which they may offer to GM schools. Many of us, particularly in rural areas, have valued the services offered. These have been freely negotiated after competition with other suppliers from both public and private sectors and we cannot understand why it is proposed that there should he restraint of such trade".
The Museums Association has written similarly—but we shall doubtless be hearing about that in due course.
Then, the Girls' Schools Association:
"We cannot understand why, after two years, the LEAs must cease to market their services. The independent sector has taken advantage of these which are often excellent. If they are not no-one will buy them and they will, in any case, die. Why abandon a source of expertise already assembled? We are concerned lest the communities created by LEAs and their schools are to be destroyed and the smaller entities of single schools, with their parents and governors, become isolated islands, all competing against each other".
That was the Girls' Schools Association. It is quite clear that the users of these services want them to continue at full strength.
I have described some of the problems. Other noble Lords may find other ones. Our solution in Amendments Nos. 299ZA, 299BA and in 300ZA is quite clear-cut. We have no quarrel over full costs, and not enough of a quarrel over geographical boundaries to make an issue of it here. But we want to do away with the need for the Secretary of State to intervene, in subsections (1) and (2). We think, for the reasons I have given, that there should be a genuinely free market, for the benefit of all schools and all children. And we believe that there should be no artificial time limit on it, in common with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, whose Amendment No. 300 also seeks to do away with the two-year restriction in subsection (4). If LEA music, grounds maintenance and curriculum advice are what GM schools want, let them have them; if not, they will wither away.
There cannot be an argument of principle against relaxing the Local Authorities Act of 1970, or the Government would not be proposing it themselves to meet the new situation. And that is the point: we have a new situation in our school system, and to meet it the legislative dog should wag the tail and not vice versa. We must do what is best for our schools—all our schools—and legislate accordingly. Common sense requires it. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: The proposals in the clause have caused widespread concern. Many schools have adopted grant-maintained status, as the noble Earl has been arguing, on the assumption that they would be able to continue to buy local authority services. They are worried by the Government's proposals. The clause could, paradoxically, act as a disincentive to parents in seeking grant-maintained status. Grant-maintained schools may, under the clause as it stands, have their main supplier of particular goods and services (the LEA) disbarred from trading with them. Parents put an enormous amount of time and effort into selecting schools for their children and take many aspects into consideration, including those which may be affected by the clause, such as the provision of school meals, library services, music tuition and the rest. Therefore it seems right that information as to which are provided by LEAs, and for how long LEA provision

1375
may continue, should be notified to parents. That would also mean that such information is in the public domain and therefore available—this is crucial—to prospective parents.
Clause 265, as it stands, provides for exemptions allowing LEAs to provide goods and services to grant-maintained schools by order of the Secretary of State and with an upper time limit of two years on such provision. The Secretary of State may also decree which goods and services may be supplied. The amendments to Clause 265 would enable LEAs to provide goods and services to grant-maintained schools so long as both the LEA and the school wish the service to continue.
If such trading is not allowed, a variety of problems might arise. For example, the proposed time limit will act as a disincentive to set up new or to develop existing LEA-based service provision. What privately run business would start up knowing that its markets could disappear in 24 months? Diseconomies of reducing scale as more schools opt out will make it increasingly difficult for LEAs to retain core services in support of their own schools without disproportionate expense. It is doubtful whether others will necessarily enter the market to provide those services. In some areas—I hope that we all listened to the point the noble Earl was making about this—particularly rural ones, schools could end up with a monopoly private sector supplier of some goods and services which the LEA could provide more efficiently and cheaply were it permitted to do so. The restriction is nothing more than a denial of choice to grant-maintained schools which perversely, as I have said, could inhibit future moves to grant-maintained status.
What I am very worried about in all this is the inevitable drift in the new policy. Are we really supposing that people who are driven by the profit motive—that is the honourable purpose of business—will be looking at the educational needs of the children all over the country or will they be looking for the opportunity for profit? Is this a sensible provision to introduce for the heart of our educational system?
Many of us who look at the provision are also worried by another insidious attack on the whole concept of service. At a time when we talk to young people about values and responsibilities, the message again being sent out is that provision can be made only by those who are profiting out of provision. The sense of service to the community, and effective service, is being dismissed. We know that the better local authorities have been providing outstanding services in that respect. If we become more specific, the issues that must worry us are in the sphere of, for example, outdoor activities. Outdoor activities can be highly dangerous. We have seen that in recent months. Surely the only acceptable standard for our children is a standard of provision which puts safety, professionalism and quality above all else. The thought that people may be coming into the operation merely to be able to make money has frightening dimensions for the future.
As it stands, the clause—I emphasise this point—has met with considerable opposition. The quotations
1376
given by the noble Earl were a good illustration of the breadth of the anxiety, because they came from quarters from which anxiety might not necessarily have been expected. I wonder whether I might add to his quotations one which I find particularly telling in this debate. It is from the secretary to the Headmasters' Conference, no less. What more prestigious body is there in the independent sector of education? He wrote:
"We are concerned that Clause 244 of the current Education Bill will effectively prevent local education authorities from providing support services to grant-maintained and independent schools after two years. Many independent schools have been pleased to take advantage of the services supplied by LEAs and are concerned that such activities will be now left to private enterprise. While our schools will certainly not need to be persuaded that educational activities can be effectively provided by the private sector, there is a serious danger of a valuable resource being eroded to a point where it ceases to be viable. We hope that Clause 244 can be suitably amended to allow the LEAs to complete with private enterprise in providing services to the grant-maintained and independent sectors".
That was officially from the Headmasters' Conference to the Secretary of State.
In its report, The Implementation of Local Management for Schools, published by the DFE itself, HMI noted:
"The support offered by LEAs is an important contributor to the successful implementation of local management by many schools. The grant-maintained and independent sectors too have taken advantage of those quality services. It is difficult to see why this choice should be restricted in the way proposed".
It is also worth recognising that not all grant-maintained schools will be able to benefit from the two-year concession, because, as the noble Earl underlined, that will be true only in respect of grant-maintained schools established at the date when the relevant order is made. Others established later will have a reducing period of discretion. Indeed, as he said, those established more than two years after the date of the order will not benefit at all.
It has been argued that the local authorities exist to provide services to those in their area and not to trade. Surely that should enable them to provide educational services to those pupils for whom they have a responsibility —those who reside in their area. That is not trading in simple market terms, but provision for the residents in their authority, which should be available whether they attend county or grant-maintained schools.
In conclusion, perhaps I may make this point: of course we want the provision of public services to be cost-effective. Nothing less than cost-effectiveness is acceptable. The electorate, and others, should keep its local authorities under sharp scrutiny in that respect. If the free market principle is to be applied, why should not the local authority be able to compete with other private suppliers? There is a basic illogicality here. It seems to me that, regretfully, here we go again at the beginning of our last day in Committee with a distressingly marvellous illustration—if that is not a contradiction in terms—of the way, repeatedly in the Bill, dogmatic ideology comes before common sense and quality. I am glad to support the amendment.
Baroness Blotch: Perhaps it would help the Committee if I come in on what I believe to be a

1377
misunderstanding of the relationship between the 1970 Act and the provisions of the Bill. If the Committee is agreeable it might inform the debate and of course it would not preclude anyone from coming in after me.
There has been considerable misunderstanding about this part of the Bill. Under the 1970 Act, as the noble Earl said, although he did not go on to discuss the relationship, so long as the LEA does not exceed the margin of capacity, it can provide services to schools (LEA-maintained or grant-maintained) in and beyond its own authority's boundaries. A designation order under Clause 265 would enable the authority, in addition to the 1970 provisions, to trade beyond that margin with grant-maintained schools within the authority or in the area of an adjacent authority. That is in addition to trading up to the margin of capacity in any other local authority.
During that period the LEA could also continue to provide services to schools in other authorities so long as in doing so it was acting within the margins of capacity of any service that relates to the functions of that authority. At the end of the two-year period, which has already been referred to, the authority will continue to have power under the 1970 Act to provide services to grant-maintained schools in any authority in the country, again, so long as it did so within the margin of capacity. These amendments call for the provision of services to anyone and for local authorities to he able to develop businesses to any size whatever.
It is important to make one or two comments about the margin of capacity. First, since 1970—that is 23 years—the margin of capacity has never, ever been determined because no authority has been challenged to have been operating beyond margins of capacity. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked how the Secretary of State will know. The Secretary of State has no hand in this. He will make no judgment on a local authority. It will be for the district auditor to judge that a local authority is spending money over and above money which it ought to be spending on services to people in its area and well beyond using any spare capacity which it may have. If a local authority disagrees with that judgment it will be for the local authority to challenge it. It will then be for the courts to decide the matter, which has not happened in 23 years. Only when the courts have determined will the provisions of Clause 265 come into play. The Secretary of State will indeed be invited to grant an order to a local authority to operate and to trade additionally to the provisions of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.
Local authority services—and I mean local authority services, which subsume local education authority services—are many and varied. There is, for example, the payroll service. While a local authority exists and has a payroll service it may sell on capacity.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Is the noble Baroness making a final speech or is she just clarifying a point?
Noble Lords: No.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I thought that I had made that clear at the outset. Another service is personnel advice. So long as the local authority has the facility and the provision to offer personnel advice, and so long as it does not operate beyond the margin of capacity, it can continue to do that into the mists of time.
So long as it is responsible as a local authority for museums that will continue to be its function and, therefore, they will not disappear as local authority schools become grant-maintained. The same applies to libraries; so long as libraries exist under the function of the local authority generally, the libraries will not disappear and the local authority grant-maintained schools will be able to borrow books from the libraries.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, mentioned transport. I wish to inform the Committee at this point, because it is important, that transport is not affected by the provisions of Clause 265 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. Local authorities have the power to provide transport to any pupil at any school. The noble Earl also mentioned psychology services. As I said in previous debates on the Bill, they too are not affected by its provisions. They are protected by Clause 154, which empowers local education authorities to offer special educational needs services to pupils at any school.
When local education authorities have no schools in their areas they will still continue to have trading provisions as local authorities; for example, libraries and museums, which will continue to be a proper function of the local authorities. I hope that my comments have been helpful in relation to some of the debates that may follow.
Lord Dormand of Easington: In order to be sure what we are talking about, will the Minister define "margin of capacity"?
Baroness Blatch: I thought that I had made that clear and I had hoped to be helpful. However, I fear that I was not helpful enough. There is no way of defining "margin of capacity" for any one service. Local authorities have statutory functions. In providing for those functions, they will have departments which offer payroll services, in-service training, libraries, museums, social services and so forth. They will have those departments for the purposes of providing such services to people in their own areas. When they are deemed to be employing extra staff or using extra equipment to satisfy the needs of customers over and above the people for whom they are providing, they will then probably be in the area where they can be deemed to be exceeding capacity.
It will be for the local authority itself either to offer up and say that it is operating to capacity or for the district auditor to make a judgment. The local authority would be in a position to challenge that if it thought that it was unnecessary. If when a local authority is deemed to be trading at capacity, or verging on exceeding capacity, it has two choices. First, it can remain within capacity of any service and

1379
never, ever require a two-year extension. It can continue to provide services and to sell capacity to any customer it wishes. Secondly, it can, if it wishes to go beyond capacity, apply for a two-year extension. It may be that there is a good need, which is why the two-year extension exists, and that grant-maintained schools in an area adjacent to the authority will find it difficult to find services until there is another provider in the area. It will be for my right honourable friend to make a judgment about whether he grants that application.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: From these Benches I had intended to rise in total support of the amendment. Indeed, we support the amendment but we have a confused situation. Many parents, teacher and those connected with education are confused by the situation. They fear that Clause 265 is threatening the continued services and goods offered by local education authorities. As the debate proceeds today we hope that the Government's intentions will become clear.
Many people are worried, confused and suspicious of the Government's intentions. Is it their intention that ultimately local education authorities shall dwindle into mere services for special needs and that everything else will be provided by private enterprise? That idea is extremely problematical. The services may not arise, they may work only for profit, they may become private monopolies, and people are anxious that services such as outdoor education will cease to be adequately supervised.
I ask the Committee to bear with me because I wish to seize the opportunity to read a brief excerpt from a letter which I received from the recently-retired chairman of the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres, Mr. McMorrin. He stated:
"Whilst I would not wish to anticipate the findings of any inquiry, the recent tragedy at Lyme Bay has focused attention on the need for staff supervising pupils in potentially hazardous situations to be appropriately qualified and experienced. The LEA Centres, particularly those whose Heads are members of the AHOEC, have constantly sought to ensure the safety of their pupils by investing in qualifications and experience. Our concern is that, since such staff are the most expensive item in any Centre's budget, they are the most likely to suffer reductions when cuts have to be made. Since the thrust of Government policy in the Education Bill is for the Outdoor Education service increasingly to be provided by the private sector, we are concerned that the need to operate at a profit will result in corners being cut in the provision of qualified staff".
That is a real anxiety from an important source. I hope that today we shall have some reassurance from the Minister about the issues which worry many people most seriously.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I had thought that when the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, said that he had intended to support the amendment he would go on to say that, having heard the explanation of the background, which was given by my noble friend on the Front Bench, he had reached the conclusion that the matter was rather more complicated than he had assumed. That is certainly my experience. In the briefs that I have received from reputable organisations
1380
representing, for example, local authority finance officers, and others, there is no reference whatever to the 1970 Act.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, had obviously done his homework extremely well because he started by quoting the 1970 Act. I am immensely grateful to my noble friend for explaining the matter so clearly because the 1970 Act remains at the heart of this and all the powers still exist. I had not understood that. That is perhaps my fault and I should have gone into the matter more deeply. I find that I have added my name to an amendment already tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, to take out subsection (4) on the understanding that this was merely a two-year transitional period after which a grant-maintained school would not be entitled to use local authority services.
My noble friend has entirely satisfied my doubts on that score. It is clear that the 1970 Act refers not just to education services but to all the services which a local authority is entitled to provide. Nothing in this Bill reduces that. On the contrary, Clause 265 extends it to some extent and gives a power to the Secretary of State. Although I shall listen carefully to the rest of the debate, I must say that those of us who were anxious about the effect of Clause 265 have had our anxieties substantially removed.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he satisfied that if in five years' time there is merely marginal capacity, will all the grant-maintained schools which may wish to look to local authorities, be able to obtain the services that they require? That seems to be what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: On the contrary, it seems to me that, where there is a creation of grant-maintained schools which had previously been local authority maintained schools, there is no increase in the demand and, therefore, no need for any increase in capacity. If the local authority is then able to show that it can continue to deliver satisfactorily, for example, library services, outdoor sports services and all the other services which have been mentioned in the course of the debate to the benefit of those authorities, it seems to me that the limit is adequate. I am grateful to my noble friend for making that clear.
The Earl of Onslow: I had some doubts about this clause. I was approached by a clever man who understands these matters much better than I do to mention the music side of this issue. Having listened to the noble Lord. Lord Judd, I thought, "There is a splendid old-fashioned high Tory speaking", as I seemed to agree with everything that he said.
I then thought to myself that the 1970 Act was probably passed for a system of education and local authorities where outward contracting was not thought of at all. My noble friend on the Front Bench has comforted me and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has helped even further my understanding, for which I thank him.
If I have no worries about schools losing music teaching, orchestras and bands because the situation is

1381
more or less the same plus a hit extra if needs be, then we can all tear up our speeches and go home and not do all the homework which we thought we might have to do. In saying that, I must thank my noble friend for sending me a long and detailed letter which was helpful and explanatory even though I had to try hard to understand it.
If she is saying that there is nothing to worry about, I shall sit down, shut up and thank God for that.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: Perhaps I may comment on the Minister's intervention which did not clarify the situation for me. The 1970 Act was passed when there were no grant-maintained schools. Therefore, the question of trading with them did not arise. Surely that means that the Minister's comment that authorities have never gone beyond the margins of capacity is rather irrelevant to our considerations.
It is more significant that once a number of schools in an area have opted out, authorities will inevitably quickly move beyond the margins of capacity in educational services, such as music teaching and outdoor education. That is the ground for our anxiety.
I believe that legislation should clarify issues. After all, this Bill has 229 pages. However, we are now told by the Minister that at the very best there is a confusion which the courts must sort out. Therefore, we are going into the educational future of our country by saying to local authorities and schools, "There is a muddle, hut, if necessary, the courts can sort it out". Surely legislation should clarify the situation from the start.
People reading the Bill will see, as distinct from the convoluted arguments used by the Minister this afternoon, that Clause 265(4) states:
"This section may not apply to a local education authority after the expiry of the period of two years beginning when it first applies to the authority".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect, the observations of the Minister were not confusing at all. They were declaratory and most helpful. Indeed, they stated in plain English that what would happen in the courts is a matter of construction which I had not appreciated until—I agree—the matter was clarified. The courts construe and must construe the 1970 Act as applicable to changed circumstances.
I seek further clarification on one point. It has been said that, as regards contracting out services, standards would fall, qualifications would not be demanded and safety provisions and so on would slip. If the local authority contracts out, can it not impose conditions to safeguard qualifications and standards? If that is done, everything would be all right, would it not?
Lord Rochester: I asked the Minister a question following a point made by my noble friend Lord Ritchie: are the Government proposing to provide LEAs with guidelines which will enable them to fulfil their statutory duty to secure adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training and also, for that matter, to maintain the youth service as a
1382
priority concern? It is the definition of that word "adequate" on which I seek such reassurance as the Minister is able to give.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: The noble Baroness on that point did not say anything that I had not myself assumed. If I pretended to be an expert on the 1970 Act, I am certainly not in comparison with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, but my firm understanding was that, yes, it would continue within the margins. But the issue is, I think, whether those margins are going to be wide enough to enable anything realistic to survive afterwards. An awful lot of people in the country have studied this and have come to the very firm conclusion that they will not. Therefore I was surprised but very interested to hear the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that there was no problem. I continue to believe that there is a big problem.
Baroness White: I tried to follow the Minister's explanation. I am still not quite clear why we need to worry about two years. Why is it necessary to have two years?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I am sure that the Minister is aware that Clause 265 has given rise to a great deal of worry on the part of a number of organisations. As past president of the Museums Association and a patron of the Association of Independent Museums, my chief concern is the possible damage which may be caused to museum education and services traditionally provided by the LEA.
But, having heard my noble friend's reply, I think that perhaps our worries have been dissipated in many ways. I should like to thank my noble friend for explaining it so well. 1 am sure she will agree that local education authorities can make a major contribution to museum education, most particularly as regards the secondment of teachers which is a two-way traffic whereby teachers can also benefit enormously in their careers by working in museums. That was the reason behind my amendments to the clause. I am now mostly satisfied by my noble friend's reply.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Perhaps I may, unusually, help the Minister by asking a very simple question. Is she saying that the position will be no different from what it is at present?
The Earl of Onslow: I have one very small point to raise. It appears that there has been genuine confusion in the matter. Therefore, would it not be better at some stage to insert in the Bill a clause which makes it much more difficult for people to arrive at such a confused view? I suppose that asking for legislation to be clear is asking for the impossible, but that is just a rather cynical view.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I trust that the Minister will bear with me for a moment. Is it true that in two years' time local authorities will be in direct competition with possible private companies that may come forward, but that the former will have the prohibition on them that they may not trade beyond marginal capacity, whereas the private companies can

1383
trade as they wish? In that case, the LEAs would surely be at a disadvantage in an open market, especially so as their central funding from the schools within the authority is likely to have diminished; more schools will have opted out and so they will not be trading on equal terms—or, to use that other cliché, on a level playing field—with the private companies that the Government hope will come forward. Is that the case? Am I right in my assumption?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend the Minister replies, I should like to ask her a question. It is possible that she covered the ground in her earlier intervention. However, if she did, I did not understand it. My question is a simple one and it is about Clause 265(4). What is the point of the two-year time limitation?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like briefly to support the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Onslow. It may well be a good thing if the clause itself could be clarified so as to show that it is in fact in terms applying the 1970 Act, without amendment, to change the circumstances.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may speak again just shortly simply to say that I wonder whether we are going down quite the right road. I well understand that Members of the Committee opposite are satisfied as to what the provision means. However, I am not satisfied that what we have heard so far actually answers the real underlying problem, which is not whether local authorities will be in the same position in two years' time as they are now—that is, able to trade at the margin of capacity; I understand that that is the case—but whether trading at the margin of capacity will be sufficient for the educational demands of grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Blatch: I began by saying that there has been misunderstanding. I am totally confirmed in my perception of the misunderstanding by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. Even after my intervention and what has been said today, the noble Lord stood up and asked what would happen after two years and whether local authorities would have to compete with the private sector. The most commonly-held perception is that, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, the clock starts counting on two years at the end of which local authorities will no longer be able to trade.
Perhaps I may counter a quote used by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, when he mentioned the NCPTA (the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations). I can remember attending a conference when a very senior member of that body gave me an explanation of how she perceived that part of the Bill. It was quite clear to me that she actually believed that the two years started counting once the Bill received Royal Assent. Nothing of the kind is going to happen; that is a wholly wrong perception.
I am constantly asked—and, indeed, I have been asked again—for a definition of the word "capacity". It is difficult to define. If one looks at services that schools require, some of them are very school specific, such as in-service training which would be a totally
1384
school specific provision. But many of the services that schools require, especially as they become grant-maintained, are, for example, advice about personnel matters, payroll and managerial issues which local authorities generally provide. That is a local authority function. I have already mentioned many of them: museums, transport, personnel matters, payroll matters and psychological services for special needs children. So there are many services which relate specifically to local authorities' functions generally. They will continue to operate under the 1970 Act. There is nothing in the Bill whatever that cuts across or renders invalid the provisions of that Act.
My noble friend Lord Onslow said that that means that we no longer have any worries. I do not wish to be over-simplistic in the matter because I think that that would be wrong. Of course the world is changing because more and more schools are becoming grant-maintained. But the world is changing in any event for local education authorities. As local management of schools becomes a firm policy in all local education authorities, the money for many of those services is actually in the hands of the schools. I think that those who support the amendments on the Marshalled List have already said that they have no quarrel whatever with services being paid for at a proper cost.
Therefore, having agreed that, all we need to be certain about is that schools—whether they are LMS schools within a local authority or whether they become grant-maintained—can purchase the services. It is only when a local authority ceases to have a function that it is not able to provide the service. It is very difficult to find any particular function that it will not have in at least the short to medium term future. It is a long way into the future when it is conceivable that any local authority will have no local authority schools at all. Indeed, out of 24,000 schools, 18,000 to 19,000 of them are primary schools and the others are secondary schools, in addition to special schools. It will only be when they cease to have a function to provide services to those schools that the provision will seriously start to bite.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway asked about the position when a local authority contracts out services. He is indeed right in the assumption he made that, of course, local authorities are able in very great detail to specify the standards required. Even better, they are able to build in penalty clauses for those contracts to ensure that those standards are achieved. That is not so with local authority provided services. The standards are very often hit and miss. If it is a good, well run local authority, the services will be good and the quality will be high; but, if it is not, there is no guarantee that the services will be of high quality. Moreover, there is no contract to enable one to do anything about it.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked what was the purpose of subsection (4). I should like to reply in a way which I believe will also partly answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Let us think, for example, of all the secondary schools in a particular area moving into the grant-maintained sector and something which is entirely school specific.

1385
As I said, I find it very difficult to define services as entirely school specific, but if there was a department in the local authority that provided in-service training for secondary schools only—although that is not the way that local authorities usually set up their in-service training—it would cease to have the function to provide that service to its secondary schools, because it would cease to have LEA maintained secondary schools. Schools (whether they were locally managed schools within the LEA-maintained sector or grant-maintained schools) have the money in their hands to purchase the services. While they were in the local authority (while they were LEA-maintained) they would clearly purchase those services from their local authority. If those schools were all grant-maintained they would not be able to do that because the LEA would not be free to provide them. They could seek for a two-year period of extension in order for the providers of services in that area to adjust to the new situation; in other words, for other providers to come up in their stead. Very few services fall into that category.
Perhaps I may give an example that relates to a query of my noble friend Lord Onslow about music. Kirklees, a Labour-controlled local authority, representatives of which came to my department yesterday and have been talking with my department for some weeks, has an excellent peripatetic music service. It has already made it a self-contained entity within the local authority where the peripatetic services are bought in by the schools. I understand that the next stage is probably that it will become private, with the same professionals providing the lessons and the schools purchasing that provision, but purchasing it from this body which was once wholly controlled by the local authority, then given trust status and then moving out into the private sector. The two-year extension is to allow for that period of adjustment for grant-maintained schools to secure services.
I have a very long speaking note to which I have not referred because it relates specifically to individual amendments. I believe that there has been sufficient debate for me to say how I believe that this part of the Bill would work. If people—
4.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I want to speak to the amendment that is in my name because I am not altogether convinced, as some people seem to be—I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is. In case the Minister was going ahead with the total reply, I should like to inform her that I intend to speak to my Amendment No. 300B.
Baroness Blatch: I was about to suggest to the Committee that I abandon my detailed note, which is rather long, because in a general sense many of the points raised have been addressed during discussion of the amendments. I will of course sit down and allow the noble Baroness, and anybody else who wishes to speak to individual amendments, to do so, and I shall continue to answer questions. But I believe it would be
1386
tiresome for the Committee if I went over a very detailed reply to the amendments when I may well have covered the points generally. But of course I stand to be advised by the Committee.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to come back to my noble friend again. I think it is probably because I am not being as intelligent as most other Members of the Committee on this occasion. Am I right in saying that if all schools in a local authority go grant-maintained as opposed to local authority area, the LEA would have to close down, say, its peripatetic music organisation or form it into a trust; that it would not be allowed after two years of the vanishing of the purpose to run a system of peripatetic music? I understood from my noble friend's first reply that they were to be allowed to do that. It is the let or hindrance bit that worries some of us. If it will be the same as it was with a little extra help to allow people to go outside, that seems to be excellent. But if at one stage one is going to say, "No, you can't", some of the easing of my worry has now been "uneased", if that is the right word.
Baroness Blatch: First, perhaps I may draw a distinction in respect of music. There is music within the national curriculum which this Bill does not affect. The national curriculum music is an entitlement to children which local authorities are under an obligation to provide. The peripatetic music provision in most local authorities deals mostly with providing music tuition to children in schools. At this time the money for purchasing that music is now in the hands of schools under the local management-of-school system. So already local authorities' schools purchase musical tuition from the peripatetic musical staff, which in many local authorities now is a self-contained entity within the local authority. That continues.
It is a very long time in the future, but if every school in a local authority were in the grant-maintained sector, then the local authority would not have that function to provide, other than to provide for its music within the national curriculum. What would happen is that those same professionals would probably have moved to the halfway stage of being a trust within the local authority—my own local authority is one such example; Berkshire is another; Kirklees is another (there are many of them up and down the country). Instead of local schools purchasing their music from the peripatetic music service which is part of the local authority, that peripatetic music service would not be allowed to function under the local authority if it had no schools at all in its charter.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to prolong this discussion, and it may be my fault because I have had to pop in and out. It seems to me that a lot of trouble arises from the use of the word "may", which is always ambiguous. Does "may not" mean "shall not" (will be prohibited) or does "may not" mean "perhaps it will" (perhaps it won't)? Is it to mean: this section may or may not apply to a local authority, or the section must not apply?
Baroness Blatch: The point I have been making is that Clause 265 is permissive. There are local authorities in this land which may never need the provisions of Clause 265. They will provide services only to their own customers and they will operate wholly within capacity. I should say to the Committee that when we talk about exceeding capacity, we are talking about a local authority that has a function to provide a service but is providing it not only for its own people; it has used up all its capacity and still wants to go to customers beyond that.
All I am saying is that we then come to a point which I believe seriously divides both sides of the Committee. Are we going to allow unlimited capacity in scope for local authorities to become businesses—for that is what they do once they go past needing to provide services for their own people and enter the business of selling services to anybody, employing more staff, employing more equipment and attracting more customers? If they do that, then they are becoming businesses as opposed to local authorities, there to provide services for local people. When they get into that situation there is a serious philosophical difference between those of us on this side of the Committee and those on the opposite side.
Having said that, I believe, first, that there is genuine concern about the future of services for grant-maintained schools and, secondly, there is a serious misunderstanding about the clauses in the Bill. These will be triggered only if the local authority is literally operating up to and beyond the margin of capacity and has used up two years doing so. Then it is not allowed to provide any more services. We are talking about local authorities entering into the world of being businesses rather than local authorities providing local services.
Lord Judd: The Minister was very helpful in her last intervention. She has made it very plain that there is a more fundamental difference within the Committee over this matter than was perhaps suggested at the beginning. She said very specifically in her last remarks that the objective is to prevent the local authority becoming a business. None of us wants the local authority to become a business. But we do believe—if she reads Hansard she will find that that is what she said.
Baroness Blatch: I do not deny that. But I said businesses "over and above" providing services that relate to its own functions for its own people.
Lord Judd: I accept the point that the noble Baroness makes and I believe she hopes to clarify the situation. What some of us are saying is that some local authorities have built up unrivalled expertise and quality of service, and it is quite extraordinary that they should then be artificially debarred from competing in the market-place. That is what we find very odd in terms of the commitment of the Minister and her colleagues to the market. It is not an open market; if the local authority wants to compete, it is not allowed to. That deeply disturbs us and is causing a great deal of anxiety in the country; particularly because in areas such as outdoor activities—I do not
1388
think that we can emphasise outdoor activities too much because of the dangers and the hazards that operate there—some local authorities have built up their reputation on the basis of safety, quality and professionalism. There are genuine anxieties about the cowboys who may begin to operate when they see the opportunity for profit, and children's lives become at risk.
I am very grateful to the Minister for having opened up this debate. She has, almost painstakingly, made it clear that there is perhaps a bigger issue here than at first we were led to suppose.
The other point I must make is that I find her argument tortuous. If local authorities were not likely to go beyond the margins of capacity in providing specific goods and services there would be no need for the clause. So why is it there? The clause has obviously been introduced because there is a problem. The Minister really cannot have it both ways.
Perhaps the most important point arising from the debate in Committee is that it is becoming clear—if this is not a contradiction in terms—that the Bill is about as clear as dust. The Minister herself has said that there is a serious misunderstanding about the Bill. If there is such a serious misunderstanding about the Bill, she and her officials should be worried about that. It would be encouraging if she felt able to say to the Committee this afternoon that she accepts that there is a misunderstanding and that the situation must obviously be clarified and she will therefore take the clause away, have a look at it and come back at Report stage having made the situation much clearer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his help. Is the burden of his first point that the long-stop provision of the Audit Commission and the facility to go to the courts for a declaratory judgment—which has never been done—is not satisfactory and the mechanism ought to be changed? Is that one of the aspects which he believes should receive attention?
Lord Judd: I always respect interventions by the noble Lord. My response is that it does not seem to me to be satisfactory that when we are considering a Bill which is supposed to be taking the educational system of Britain into the next century we should be told that the drafting has led to a great deal of misunderstanding. We have been told that by the Minister herself. We have been told that there will be misunderstandings and tangles ahead but if they arise they can be sorted out in court. That is an admission of inadequacy in drafting.
I have been longing to applaud the Minister on something during our deliberations. I would applaud her if she felt able to say to us this afternoon that, having said that there is serious misunderstanding, clearly the matter ought be put in language which can be better understood. If even the Headmasters' Conference has misunderstood the situation, what hope is there for the future of Britain? It seems to me that the Minister should tell us now that she is taking the matter away and will come back at Report stage with the situation clarified. We would then almost give three cheers.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is contributing to the confusion in this debate as much as anybody. The Act which I described has been on the statute book since 1970. That Act, which underlines all of this and which my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding mentioned when I first intervened in the debate, has served local authorities very well. Local authorities provide all manner of services: social services, housing, street cleaning, collection of waste, all aspects relating to education and so forth. Local authorities have always provided those services. They have no need whatever to make judgments themselves about what is marginal capacity. They behave in what they believe is a sensible way, providing services for their people.
It is for the local district auditor, who every year inspects local authorities' books, to make a judgment about whether authorities are spending local ratepayers' money in a way which is defensible and consistent with their functions. The system has worked for 23 years. There is no confusion about that.
There is nothing in the Bill which cuts across that or invalidates the provisions of that Act. The local authority will continue to operate under the 1970 Act, just as it has for 23 years. However, because of the growth of the grant-maintained sector, and because there has been some anxiety, we have allowed an extension should a local authority find itself, at some time in the future, with no local authority schools at all and its functions in that area cease to exist. I have named a large number of local authority functions, which are not school specific, which will continue and which schools will use. Those functions include payroll, advice about industrial relations, transport and psychology services for children with special needs. Those are all important.
There is one other Act of Parliament which I have not prayed in aid of my case but which may help my noble friend Lord Onslow. In addition to national curriculum music and the arrangements which I have spelt out, and in addition to the provisions of the 1970 Act, there is also Section 145 of the 1972 Act. That section gives local education authorities the ability to assist in enabling the setting up of orchestras and bands. That is outside the curriculum. It is a local decision. It is for local authorities to decide. Where they do so the law allows pupils who attend grant-maintained schools to participate without having to seek a designation order under Clause 265.
Some local education authorities, despite having that freedom to act on behalf of their grant-maintained schools, are denying grant-maintained schools that service. Here we have people pressing us to allow local authorities to provide the service. Under the 1972 Act they are free to do just that.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend answer the question which was originally put to her by the noble Baroness opposite, which I found rather difficult to follow? I do not believe that my noble friend has answered that question. In the famous subsection (4), around which a good deal of discussion has centred, the word "may" is used. It reads:
1390
"This section may not apply to a local education authority".
Is that equivalent to "will not apply", or is it equivalent to saying that it may or may not apply? If it is the latter, in what circumstances would it apply or not apply?
Baroness Blatch: I was going to have a stab at clarifying that point myself and stand corrected if necessary. My understanding is that under subsection (4) a designated order may not apply after the two-year period. That means that it shall not apply. If the Committee believes that it should read "shall" rather than "may", I shall take that point back to my department and I shall beat counsel over the head in order to have the matter made even clearer on the face of the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should be very glad if my noble friend would amend "may" to read "shall". Then we would really know what it meant.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: At the risk of being thought boneheaded and obstinate, I feel that what we are really talking about and what a great many people and organisations in the country, parents and the education profession are concerned about is quality assurance. They are afraid that as the system is unravelled the quality of services which have been offered successfully for a number of years will decline.
I believe that I am right in saying that there was a parallel fear at the time of the abolition of the ILEA which, with all its disadvantages, offered excellent services of this type. Although the individual boroughs have made a good attempt a great deal of expertise was lost. That is the fear in this case. Many people do not see the two-year period in a positive sense. They see it as a negation. That is what is misunderstood. I believe that people are really concerned about quality assurance and what will happen as the system is unravelled.
Baroness Warnock: I am almost ashamed to say that I still do not understand what the Minister has said, because she has taken immense trouble. Like an excellent teacher she has made allowances for the stupidities of those of us who still do not understand. However, whether or not I decide to move the amendment to which I have put my name—Amendment No. 300 —depends upon the answer to a question which I must put. We have heard that in the event that there were no longer any local authority secondary schools in a particular local authority area but all of those schools were grant-maintained, it would not be possible for the local authority to continue to supply services which were wholly school related. I think that I understand that.
But let us consider that that the local authority area is divided 50:50, or 60 per cent. grant-maintained schools and 40 per cent. local authority schools. The local authority still has the power and duty to provide school services such as peripatetic music teaching for its own schools. It has the ability to provide for grant-maintained schools also if those schools so wish. When the number of local authority schools drops to

1391
zero the local authority has no schools function whatever. It can no longer supply the grant-maintained schools with those services.
That is the point that I do not understand. When the local education authority still has two or three schools to supply why is it possible still to supply the grant-maintained schools with services but no longer to be able to do so when the last local authority school becomes grant maintained? I do not understand why the local authority can provide such services in the first instance but not in the second.
Baroness White: Has the noble Baroness taken into account the entire reorganisation of the local pattern by the Secretary of State for Wales? The provision is not as important as it is for England because I do not believe that we shall have many grant-maintained schools in Wales. However, has the situation been taken into account? It will involve a completely different balance between the authorities.
Baroness Blatch: No, it makes no difference. Whether or not there are grant-maintained schools, there will be local authorities with a local authority function. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that even if there were no local authority maintained schools in an area—in other words, if every single school had become grant maintained—there would still be a local education authority which has functions as set out in the Bill. Those authorities have serious functions to do with transport, special needs, psychology services and a host of matters. They continue to have those functions with or without their own maintained schools. Those functions remain. It is the service which a grant-maintained school purchases. If it is one of the general services, there will always be a local authority in the area with a function to provide most of those services. The services that are entirely school specific are very narrow and few. Those professionals who provide those services now—we are referring to a long way down the track—continue to be the same professionals, living and working in the area. They will simply provide those services, in the first instance perhaps under trust status. I have a long list of local authorities which are doing just that. The next step down the road, which again some local authorities are undertaking, involves their becoming private entities within the local authority area.
Baroness Warnock: The noble Baroness takes a very philosophical view. She takes the extreme case of an authority which is no longer an education authority because there are no more local education schools. That is an extreme—and at present I believe fairly fanciful—example. However, I worry very much about the transition period towards that glorious day when all schools are grant maintained. It will be extremely difficult for local education authorities to plan which services they will be required to provide as their own schools diminish in number and they do not know for certain whether the grant-maintained sector will wish to buy those services. How can a local authority regulate the cost of continuing its provision
1392
if it does not know which services will be required for any length of time? The period may be two years, five years or whatever; it is irrelevant. It is difficult for the local authority to be told that it may or may not be required to provide services. It will not know the answer until the grant-maintained school has made up its budget.
I realise that it can be argued that under LMS the same system applies. However, the LMS school is still a local authority school and the local authority is therefore responsible for the supply of services. There is an enormous difference in the situation when the numbers of schools are becoming fewer and the local education authority has a smaller area of responsibility.
Baroness David: I appreciate the Minister seeking to explain this complicated affair. However, some of us thought that we understood it previously. From his opening speech I am quite sure that the noble Earl understood it.
I wish to speak about school libraries and museums. From my brief I believe that the people who are anxious about the schools library service understood the position perfectly clearly. They are still extremely anxious about the situation. I shall therefore speak to my Amendment No. 300B because it may help a little with the general understanding.
Clause 265 is viewed as a concession by Ministers. At the moment the ability of local authorities to "trade" with other public bodies such as grant-maintained schools is limited by the 1970 Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act. That has been interpreted by the Audit Commission and by the Government to mean that local authorities can only "trade" at the margin with such bodies using up excess capacity, but not investing extra resources to have the capacity to be able to provide services to them.
If the number of schools opting out increases, then it is likely that the schools library services, and other LEA provision, will soon be trading outside the margin, possibly unlawfully. At this stage the Education Bill provides that the Secretary of State can issue an order exempting authorities from the restrictions of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act for a period of two years. However, after that all the services must be provided by the private sector.
The Local Authority Associations believe that the Audit Commission's interpretation of the 1970 Act is much too restrictive and a number of authorities probably already contravene the Act on that interpretation. However, it has never been tested in the courts and there is a danger that many schools library services could face extinction if the Audit Commission's views were accepted. The proposed amendment, Amendment No. 300B, allows the Secretary of State to extend or renew an order should no alternative schools library service provision be available at the end of the first two-year period. In the light of the debate over what the law means, it is very much a safety-first amendment.
Perhaps I may refer to the role of the schools library service. The schools library services are run either by the public library service as an agent of the LEA or

1393
directly by the education authority itself. They support the work of library and information services within primary, secondary and special schools. Typically they will provide a book exchange scheme for schools, a project loan scheme to support individual projects being undertaken within schools, an advisory service to schools on all aspects of school library management and use, training for teachers and information handling skills, and work in skills promoting the enjoyment of reading. They are an essential back up to library and information services within schools as no individual school could hope to provide all the learning resources necessary to support the curriculum. They provide a network of professional support for librarians within schools. They are also highly commended in most HMI reports and on occasion highlighted as the only good thing about a school library.
Numerous HMI reports attest to the sorry state of library and information services within schools. The Book Trust report, Books in Schools, was published only a few months ago. It highlights the importance of reading ability in relation to overall educational attainment. However, the report opens with the statement,
"Rarely have so many pupils had so few books".
The last HMI report on secondary school libraries revealed that almost half the schools surveyed did not offer a satisfactory service.
The agency best placed to counteract those inadequacies of provision is already in existence—the schools library service. If it disappears, all schools in an area are likely to end up having no service rather than increased choice. We can see no reason why a local authority should not be able to continue to provide a service to grant-maintained schools in competition with others. It is known that many grant-maintained schools appreciate the schools library service which they receive from the local education authority, with many opted-out schools buying back in.
There is little or no evidence to suggest that the private sector will be able to provide an alternative service in all areas of the country. The private sector has shown little interest, for example, in providing public library services where these have been offered to private tender. If current schools library services set themselves up as independent trusts, it will presumably remove them from the proposed restraints, but we cannot be confident that the availability of such a provision will be consistent across the country after two years. There is a great danger, therefore, that many schools would have no provision available.
The proposed amendment is intended to give the Secretary of State powers to renew orders in areas where no alternative provision will be available from the private sector, thus ensuring that all pupils have access to their full entitlement of schools library services.
In fact, I prefer Amendment No. 300 which deletes subsection (4). What I have said about the schools library service refers equally to the museum education service which I believe does an absolutely marvellous
1394
job. I cannot see how any private business could possibly provide what it provides. Only about six weeks ago I went to the Dulwich Picture Gallery and was shown round by Mrs. Gillian Wolfe, who is in charge of the education department there. I spent a morning watching schools parties going round and it was a marvellous occasion. The children were absolutely rapt, there was an actor dressed up as Van Dyck, who was explaining the period of the pictures, when they were painted and so on. I do not think that any other private service could possibly supply what those people are doing. The departments for education in the museums rely very much on local authority funding. It is that kind of service that I believe is in danger of disappearing. I understand and I believe that the schools library service understands what the clause means. I very much hope that the Minister will agree to take the amendment back; we should all be happy if she did so. But I felt that I wanted to say my piece about the schools library service and the education side of the museums.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may remind the Committee briefly that this long and marvellous discussion on Clause 265 and the amendments to it has taken place on the first amendment on the Marshalled List, which is to add a new clause after Clause 246 and which has only a slight effect upon Clause 265. The first amendment has scarcely been discussed.
I feel bound to make the comment, however, that as it requires only one parent or guardian to seek any information from the governors collectively about a matter arising under Clause 265, the amendment should not be at all necessary. I should expect the governors, if circumstances require, to give information about the operation of Clause 265—indeed about the operation of the 1970 and 1972 Acts.
However, I say with deep respect to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, whose names are to the amendment, that it is an over-zealous provision of the kind which makes our legislation so detailed and voluminous and, incidentally, it raises further problems of interpretation. It would also add to the cost of administration. Therefore, I wonder whether in those circumstances it might be better for the noble Earl and the noble Lord not to press the first amendment. We have had a wonderful discussion on Clause 265; we shall obviously all have to think about it. The discussion has gone on for one hour and 21 minutes.
Lord Lucas: I have learnt a lot in the last hour and 21 minutes, but have not really understood how the definition of "trading at the margin" will operate. As an accountant, I know that it is hard to define and is capable of being interpreted much more fiercely than the Government appear to interpret it. I feel uncomfortable that this important idea should be left for some future definition by the courts.
Perhaps I may pick out an example from the subject addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady David. If a museum, which is clearly protected under the current arrangements, had a number of staff guiding school

1395
parties around, it is quite clear to me that, under any reasonable definition of "trading at the margin", if the number of grant-maintained schools in an area grew to the point where one of the staff were solely concerned with guiding grant-maintained pupils round the museum, it would be trading beyond the margin.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I ought, first, to refer to museums and libraries because I understand the anxieties that have been expressed about them. However, I also need to say to the noble Baroness that at least one illustrious Member of the Committee runs a private museum very well and does extremely well by young people. First, perhaps I may refer specifically to museums.
Baroness David: I know that that covers one museum, but there are areas where the children need to go; it is more than just one museum.
Baroness Blatch: Of course, I concede that point, but the noble Baroness said that it was inconceivable that a private museum could provide the same kind of service as a local authority-run museum. I am simply saying that they can do so, and there are examples where private museums provide very good services to young people.
Museums which receive funds other than from a local authority, including nationally funded and private museums, are not the issue here. Nothing in the Bill affects them. My noble friend Lord Montagu's museum—the one to which I referred just now—is most impressive and one which I have had the pleasurable experience of visiting. It provides a wonderful experience for young people and is also not at all affected by the legislative framework which we are now discussing.
Where local authority-funded museums occur, they exist to provide a museum service in all its guises and to all the people within the local area. There is no question of any of that being affected by the provisions of the Bill. In the course of their work in some areas, the museums will provide services to schools in terms of school visits, help to teachers and exhibition artefacts being taken into individual schools. Under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964—another Act of Parliament which I pray in aid of my case—a local authority is required to take into account the need to secure that a museum or gallery plays its full part in the promotion of education in the area and to have particular regard to the interests of children and students.
A local authority may also make contributions towards the expense incurred by any person in providing advisory or other services or financial assistance for the benefit of a museum or art gallery. So it goes on being a function of the local authority. Finally, a local authority maintaining a museum or art gallery may establish a fund to be used for the purchase of objects for exhibition in any museum or gallery maintained by that authority. Of course, under local management of schools schemes, where money is
1396
delegated to schools, whether a school actually wishes to use any of the services is very much a matter for the head teacher and governors of the school.
The provision of museum services of that kind to grant-maintained schools will not run into difficulties under the 1970 Act. As to libraries, where a schools library service might well be part of the local authority-wide public library service, which provides a service to the community as a whole, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which a library service will operate beyond the margins of capacity, even if all its school-based work were in grant-maintained schools. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend Lord Lucas.
However, even if the 1970 Act and Clause 265 came into play, the amendments essentially boil down to whether the services are, by their nature, so different from others that the LEA monopoly must be protected and, in trading terms, local taxpayers' money put at risk, because that would certainly be the effect of Amendments Nos. 299A, 299B and 299C. I believe that in practice it would also be the effect of Amendment No. 300B.
We want the full effects of the 1970 Act to continue, the extension and permission to operate under the provisions of Clause 265, which is additional to that, with the 1972 Act as it relates to orchestras and so forth and the other Act to which I have just referred in the case of museums.
We could talk ourselves into a great frenzy about fears about the Act. I believe that they are mostly unfounded and that we need to make sure that schools, whether grant-maintained or LEA-maintained, continue to receive the services that allow them to provide a high-quality education service.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Is she confident that local authorities will continue to be able to run local education authority museum services when they are no longer responsible for the majority of primary and secondary schools in their areas? There must be some anxiety that those services will fall by the wayside in those circumstances.
Perhaps she will also explain a distinction that she appeared to make earlier in the debate between what she called school-specific services and other services. I must admit that I am a little confused by that distinction. What is it based on and why should such a distinction be made?
Baroness Blatch: On the first point, it will be a local authority function, not an LEA function, to provide museums. If it continues to provide museums, so long as a museum is there people can partake of its services. The museum is for all the people in that area. Even under the local management of schools system the schools have the money—so too will the grant-maintained schools have the money—and they can continue to buy into that service so long as that museum is in that local authority area. The same goes for libraries so long as the libraries are there. As regards education services local authorities have passed the money down to schools and schools will

1397
continue to provide the service because it will remain a local authority function to provide museum and library services for all of its people, whatever their age.
On the second point concerning the school-specific service, as I believe I have said a number of times, but I shall reiterate it, a school-specific service would be in-service training for a particular subject taught in schools, with courses laid on to enable teachers to teach a subject of the national curriculum. That is a school-specific service. Non-school specific services, which a school would still need, as would other organisations within the local authority, would be payroll services, advice to deal with industrial relations and personnel management issues. Those are non-school-specific services. They are general services for which the local authority will continue to have a function and an obligation to provide whether there are schools in the LEA sector or all the schools are in the grant-maintained sector.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to intervene again. Is my noble friend saying that the only school-specific service is in-house training for teachers? If not, will she tell us what the others are? I do not think that I am the only person who is confused, otherwise I would not have intervened.
Baroness Blatch: I cannot think of many services. I am finding it very difficult to think of one, but if any Member of the Committee can suggest a service that relates to a function of the local authority which would be provided only for schools and not for any other organisations within the local authority, that would be described as a school-specific service. As I said, in-service training, which is concerned with the delivery of the national curriculum, would be entirely school-specific, but beyond that I cannot think of any other examples. So long as the local authority has any schools in its charge for which it is responsible, it will need to provide those services—training for the national curriculum and so on.
When local authorities run courses it makes good sense to allow them, under the 1970 Act, to fill up the places on those courses with anyone who wishes to purchase their services. Only when they go beyond that capacity are they allowed to call for a two-year extension and only at the end of that two-year extension are they deemed to be trading well beyond provision for local authority services.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Perhaps the noble Baroness will help me. I am becoming more and more embarrassed at revealing my total stupidity. If I have understood her correctly, she now appears to be saying that the provision in Clause 265 is only for school-specific services of which she cannot think of any. Have I misunderstood the position?
Baroness Blatch: I said that Clause 265 is a permissive part of the Bill. When local authorities provide services to their schools they have to ensure that those services relate to their functions as set out in law. When they are deemed by the district auditor to be selling so many of their services that they are trading beyond the margins—in other words, if they are selling services to numerous other local authorities
1398
in the country and the district auditor takes the view that they now employ more staff and equipment than they need to provide for their own services—they can come to the Secretary of State for Education and ask for an extension to provide a service for two years beyond which that permission falls. It need not be a school-specific service. They could come to the Secretary of State and be at the margin of capacity for payroll services or personnel advice, but if they wish to continue to provide those services to schools, whether grant-maintained schools or schools in another authority, they would need to seek permission if they were above the margin of capacity for that service.
As I said earlier, the only services that cause anxiety are those which will be affected as schools become grant-maintained. Local authorities will be expected to adjust their central services to the number of schools for which they are responsible. It is only that aspect which may throw up the need to invoke Clause 265.
Baroness Hamwee: I hesitate to raise this point because I might have missed it being dealt with elsewhere, but would supply teaching be one of the school-specific services that might be affected by the provision?
Baroness Blatch: If a local authority had no schools whatever in its charge and was responsible for no schools at all, it would provide no teachers. As teachers came along and wished to be recruited, they would be recruited by the schools as they are now LEAs employ their own teachers in maintained schools and grant-maintained schools employ their own teachers. Indeed, they employ most of their own local supply teachers.
However, let us take the most extreme example, that a local authority has no schools in its charge for which it is responsible. It would not provide a pool of supply teachers. Notice has been given of the intention to oppose the clause regarding the number of agencies that now supply teachers to schools. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that, if a local authority had lost all its schools and had ceased to have a function, it could operate the two-year extension to provide those services, although once it had reached the end of that period it could no longer provide those services. One of the problems is that there are now so many agencies supplying teachers to schools. Schools can recruit teachers from their local areas so it is ceasing to be a big issue for schools.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I shall he brief. I am a little worried because all local authorities now have to put everything out to competitive tender and this has become a huge job for them. All local authority departments are now called trading departments, whether they are looking after consumer services or parks and playing fields, and at the end of the financial year they have to report their profits and losses. None of them can make losses any more when they are tendering. School transport has gone out to competitive tender. There are contracts on playing fields and open spaces which schools use for sporting events. School dinners have gone out to competitive

1399
tender and many local authorities have lost their tenders. Swimming is also going out to competitive tender. In the long run all those departments will have to ensure that they receive the money from somewhere for the schools that have come out of local authority control and become grant-maintained. In the long run they will not accept it because the trading departments are standing on their own feet and are not part and parcel of the education department. They will say, "No. Those schools will have to put in a special tender to use our facilities". Is not that a problem that could arise?
Lord Northbourne: I ask the Committee to forgive me for intervening from the Cross Benches. I should like to draw attention to the fact that this is the first amendment and we have spent nearly two hours on it. There are a great many Members of the Committee who fear that they will be here not only until the early hours but to the late hours of tomorrow morning.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Perhaps this is a moment to bring the discussion to an end, if there is nobody else who wishes to come in on it. I shall try to keep my reply as simple and short as I can. This afternoon's debate has taken some very interesting turns. I have listened very hard to what the Minister said. I thank her for her clarifications, one or two of which put my mind at ease over certain points. But on the major issue, I still have a difficulty with trading at the margins.
It seems to me—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, also pointed it out—that as the market shrinks, so the moment at which one trades beyond the margins comes ever closer. Therefore, despite what the noble Baroness said, it seems to me that there are services, which may not be exactly school or education specific but for which a large amount of the market is out in schools, that will soon be trading beyond the margins. In that case it will be disallowed and there will not be the choice. We are not talking about a monopoly. There is no question of a monopoly—that is the word she used. It is a free choice for everybody. It is this business of quality assurance, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said.
On that basis I cannot be convinced that all the services, or most of them, will survive in the way that the noble Baroness says, nor that we will not be in a position quite soon when the margins are exceeded and all this rigmarole is brought in. If the Minister were going to do as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said and bring in some clarification—I do not know whether she is with me on this—perhaps we might think again. Am I right in guessing that she does not propose to do that?
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure on which question the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, wishes for clarification.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: It was the suggestion from these Benches earlier that perhaps the whole clause should be taken away and re-worked to bring some clarification to it.
Baroness Blatch: If that is the question, the answer is absolutely not.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I thought so. Therefore our feeling is that at least our amendment brings a measure of quite strong clarity into the matter and will produce an educationally desirable result for all the schools. On that basis I should like to press the amendment to a division.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.287BA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ailesbury, M.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Judd, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kitchener, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.[Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mayhew, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bottomley, L.

Molloy, L.

Bridges, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Palmer, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Desai, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Foot, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Stedman, B.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strafford, E.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Warnock, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Bessborough, E.

Aldington, L.

Birdwood, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blake, L.

Archer of Weston-super-Mare, L.

Blatch, B.

Blyth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Boardman, L.

Astor, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Auckland, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Beloff, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

1401

Cadman, L.

Lye L.

Caithness, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Mancroft, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Marlesford, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Moyne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Munster, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Northbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

O'Cathain, B.

De L'Isle, V.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L.

Orkney, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dormer, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elles, B.

Prentice, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pym, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Romney, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Granard, E.

Sandford, L.

Grantchester, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Selkirk, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sherfield, L.

Harvington, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Slim, V.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Howe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Huntly, M.

Swinfen, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tebbit, L.

Killearn, L.

Teviot, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Layton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Liverpool, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Wilberforce, L.

Lucas, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.31 p.m.
Clause 247 [Sponsor governors for aided secondary schools]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 287C:
Page 146, line 34, leave out ("aided") and insert ("county, voluntary or maintained special").
The noble Lord said: I trust that this group of amendments can be dealt with more swiftly than the last.
The purpose of Amendment No. 287C is to enable all LEA-maintained schools to have sponsor governors and thus the financial and other benefits of business sponsorship. It is unfair to discriminate in this respect between categories of school.
The Minister may argue that only the trustees of an aided school can hold an endowment or other large capital gifts from businesses, since they own the school premises and governing bodies of LEA-maintained schools do not. But that technical difficulty is reduced
1402
by the Bill's provision for legally incorporating all governing bodies of state schools. In any case, it can be overcome by the governing body setting up a trust. The trust can be administered together with the sponsors and sponsorship money paid into it.
It is a simple amendment. It is another example of trying to level the playing field between different statuses of school so that the competition which the Bill seeks to set up between different schools can be on a fair basis. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 288 in my name and that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. Clause 247 amends the Education (No.2) Act 1986. It relates only to aided schools in which the trustees at present have a right to a majority of two governors, or three if the total number exceeds 18.
Clause 247, as drafted, would reduce the majority to one in schools where there was one or more sponsor governors. The purpose of the amendment is to restore the status quo so that there should be two trustee governors, which we feel to be reasonable. Although that would mean a slightly larger governing body due to the addition of the sponsor governors, we feel that trustees should preserve their majority of two so as to give more certainty that they would be able to ensure that the duties and responsibilities of the trustees are properly enforced.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made a good point. If we are to have equal types of school, we should try to ensure that the same requirements apply equally across the board, especially when we are talking of sponsor governors. Bearing in mind the extra benefits that may arise, it would be extremely equitable to have the same requirements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): The purpose of Clause 247—and for that matter Clause 63 which we discussed some time ago—is to enable those schools which already have a considerable degree of autonomy to extend that by direct association with a private sector sponsor. That sponsor, with the consent of the Secretary of State, will be able to nominate a minority of members of the school's governing body.
Amendment No. 287C would allow county and special maintained schools to appoint sponsor governors. We feel that grant-maintained schools have demonstrated their wish to take parent power seriously by seeking self-governing status. Aided schools already have a strong relationship with their foundation. Those schools, standing free of the local authority, are best equipped to take advantage of the benefits sponsor governors can offer. That is not so in the case of other schools.
The amendment would also cause an unacceptable increase in the size of governing bodies of county and special maintained schools. The Education Act 1944 establishes that a school of more than 600 pupils shall have five parent governors, two teacher governors, five LEA governors, six co-optees plus, optionally, the head teacher. Thus such a school already has 18 or 19

1403
members and could find itself expanding the board to 23 or more. In fact, it is quite possible for a county school to achieve the benefits of sponsorship sought by the noble Lord and of direct private sector involvement in its governance by bringing in sponsors as co-optees. Authorities, such as Lincolnshire with its College of Science and Technology and Wandsworth with Battersea Technology College, have already demonstrated how successful such an arrangement can be. I do not believe, therefore that the noble Lord's amendment would take us any further.
Amendment No. 288 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, requires the foundation governors to have a majority of two on the governing body of an aided school. Original thinking was that a simple majority would be sufficient to preserve the balance of interests on any governing body if sponsor governors were appointed. However, I understand the anxieties of the noble Lord and those for whom he is speaking. I am sure that that small increase in the majority of foundation governors would not adversely affect what the appointed sponsor governors could achieve. Consequently, I am sympathetic to the amendment. Though I shall want to take advice as to whether the amendment is satisfactory, I am prepared to give an assurance that at Report stage we will come forward with a government amendment to the same effect.
Therefore I will accept Amendment No. 288 in principle, but I cannot accept Amendment No. 287C and hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am somewhat surprised by the response that somehow grant-maintained parents have exercised parent power and for that reason deserve to have business sponsors. I have heard many speakers over the past few years talking about parent power under LMS schemes within local education authorities. I therefore find the argument particularly perverse.
I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I am sorry that the Minister does not see the argument of levelling the playing field and being seen to be fair between the different status of schools. My understanding of the primary purpose behind the whole of the legislation is to establish competition between schools. Surely that competition should be on the basis of the well-known phrase of "the level playing field". Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may add a word in regard to what we feel is the difference between the two groups of schools.
As the noble Lord will be aware, we are giving the opportunity of appointing sponsor governors to the voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools because they will have full responsibility of governance. In contrast, the county or controlled schools still have a strong link with the LEA. If the county or controlled schools were to seek a direct relationship with a sponsor, it may be that the LEA would wish to use some of its positions on the governing body to
1404
accommodate a sponsor. I do not see that, because parents have not taken the same steps as those in the grant-maintained sector, the amendment takes us any further.
Referring to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I understand that counsel have advised us that we can accept it as it is. If that will speed up Report stage by avoiding the need to bring forward another government amendment, I can assure the noble Lord that when he comes to move his amendment I shall have no objection to it.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 148, line 6, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 247, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 248 [Power of governing body of county school to propose change of character etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 288A and 288B:
Page 148, line 26, after ("been") insert ("withdrawn or").
Page 148, line 29, leave out ("change in character or enlargement") and insert ("alteration, etc.").
The noble Baroness said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 248, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 249 [Power to make and deal with proposals in the case of schools eligible for grant-maintained status]:
[Amendment No. 289 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 289A:
Page 150, line 5, leave out ("(change of character or enlargement)").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to this matter together with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 249, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 290 not moved.]
Clause 250 [Revision of schemes for financing schools maintained by local education authorities]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 290A:
Page 150, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("(replacement") in line 26 and insert:
("( ) For section 34(4) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (duty to consult before preparing a scheme) there is substituted—s
"(4) Before preparing such a scheme a local education authority shall consult—

(a) the governing body and the head teacher of every county, voluntary or special school maintained by the authority,

(b) the governing body of every grant-maintained school in the area of the authority, and

(c) the governing body of every grant-maintained special school which—

(i) is established under section 173 of the Education Act 1993 in the authority's area, or

(ii) before becoming a grant-maintained special school was a special school maintained by the authority,

1405
but the Secretary of State may, by notice in writing to the authority, dispense with the duty imposed under paragraphs (b) and (c) above in respect of such schools, or class or description of schools, as are specified in the notice."
( ) For section 35 of that Act").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 290A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 290B to 290D. This group of amendments, together with the other provisions in Clauses 250 and 251, is intended to make useful improvements to the sections of the Education Reform Act 1988 which cover local management of schools. In respect of LEAs' LMS schemes, Amendments Nos. 290A and 290B will impose a requirement that grant-maintained primary, secondary and special schools are consulted both on new LMS schemes and on revisions to schemes. However, the Secretary of state will have power to dispense with that requirement for certain schools; that is, those that are funded according to a common funding formula rather than the LMS scheme formula. In respect of LEAs' LMS financial statements, Amendment No. 290D will enable regulations to prescribe that outturn statement contain details of planned as well as actual expenditure. It will also allow for regulations to prescribe that grant-maintained schools for whom the statements are relevant are furnished with a copy. It will enable regulations to allow LEAs to furnish only relevant parts of their financial statements to schools, and it will empower the Secretary of state to direct some or all LEAs to have their LMS financial statements audited.
Amendment No. 290C is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: Amendment No. 290A obviously shows the continuing close link between grant-maintained schools and LEAs. I see that the next amendment continues the requirement to consult grant-maintained schools where the local education authority is proposing the revision of a scheme for local management. I take it that there has been a specific recent incident that has caused the department to require the involvement of grant-maintained schools in the drawing up and approval of LEA local management of school schemes. Is the fear that, unless that is done, LEAs will devise a way of reducing the direct funding part of annual maintenance grants to grant-maintained schools by making amendments to the local management of schools scheme?
The Minister has frequently said that it is the desire for independence from the LEA that is the cause of grant-maintained school applications. If that is the case, why is it that the Government are providing a way for grant-maintained schools to continue to be heavily involved in the affairs of local education authorities and those schools that have not sought grant-maintained status? Perhaps I may ask the Minister what account local education authorities will have to take of representations by grant-maintained schools in this context.
Referring to the other amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Secretary of State will
1406
provide financial information to all LEA-maintained schools in the area about the excess resources that grant-maintained schools are receiving. Quite a lot of people believe that the grant-maintained school sector is probably already giving this information to schools as an incentive to get them to opt out. I should like to ask also what access local education authority-maintained schools will have to the accounts of grant-maintained schools. One other question that needs to be answered is what is the specific incident that has caused this amendment to appear. I should be very grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on those points.
Lord Henley: Grant-maintained schools are currently funded according to the formula in local authority local management schemes. Therefore, it makes obvious sense for them to be consulted on any scheme changes proposed by that authority which may have the effect of redistributing resources between schools. Whether any particular case has cropped up is not relevant. They have a particular interest in this matter and therefore it is important that they are consulted. It will be for the LEAs to take note of any representations that those grant-maintained schools may make.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 290B:
Page 150, line 37, leave out from ("consult") to ("section") in line 39 and insert ("every governing body and head teacher whom they are obliged to consult under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 250, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Young: I should like to intervene briefly to raise a point that was touched on in the course of the very long debate on the first amendment. The issue of supply teachers has not been debated. The point that I want to raise is quite separate from the matters discussed earlier. We are all aware of the need for supply teachers in schools and the valuable role that they play in helping out when permanent members of staff are away sick or otherwise absent. This often happens quite suddenly. It has been drawn to my attention that it is important that supply teachers should be subject to the same conditions of employment as full- or part-time teachers; that is, that there is a need to ensure that they are properly qualified and do not have criminal convictions or any psychological problems that expose children to danger. Historically, local education authorities have maintained a pool of supply teachers. A school that needs a supply teacher will ask the LEA to supply one and the LEA will undertake the whole process of vetting the individual to make sure that the proper conditions are met.
As I understand it, there now appear to be some difficulties over that procedure. Smaller local education authorities have problems in maintaining a pool of supply teachers. It is possibly a new problem that may come up in relation to the future of county councils as a whole. As schools are no longer obliged to use local education authorities some may cease to provide a pool of supply teachers even for maintained

1407
schools. As my noble friend the Minister indicated when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised this point earlier on, employment agencies are now helping to overcome the problem of supply. An agency can, of course, act for either one or a number of local education authorities or indeed for individual schools. If an agency is working through an LEA or a group of LEAs, it can arrange vetting by a local education authority. But now that we have schools with local management of funds, local decision taking and budgets under LMS, as well as grant-maintained schools, they can go themselves direct to an agency.
The point that I wish to raise is this: it would be possible in the future—we need assurance on this point—for there to be either no or inadequate vetting of supply teachers, with all the dangers for children that this could entail. There are, I believe, a number of possible options that could meet this difficulty. It may well be that there ought to be a granting of approval to an employment agency by regulation before it could supply a supply teacher and some way of monitoring its standards. But it is essential that both heads and governors know that when they are dealing with an agency its standards are as high as those of the local education authority.
If this is not an acceptable way it might be possible to meet the difficulty by an amendment to the Bill—I have not put down one because I should like to hear what the Minister has to say in her answer—or it would be possible to place an obligation on either the local education authority or the grant-maintained school to undertake the vetting procedure in all cases. I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister would let me know how she sees this important problem being dealt with in the future.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. I presume that it would not happen too often that a teacher would be available through an employment agency. The main point of what the noble Baroness is saying is that these teachers should be qualified and experienced teachers. I am glad that the noble Baroness is indicating her assent. That is the most important part of it. However, if there is the possibility that teachers would be recruited through an employment agency, who would do the assessing and the investigation? Presumably, an employment agency would say, "Yes we have a teacher who is on our books", and not look at the qualifications, training and so on. I believe that the point is worth investigating.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may pick up the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. That is less of a problem. It is not a problem that a teacher should be qualified. If a school goes to an agency and asks for a qualified teacher, it expects to receive a qualified teacher. It must be for the local employment agency taking people on to its books to check that it is employing on its books qualified teachers. Clearly, if a school was let down and found for one reason or another that a teacher was not competent or qualified, the local employment agency would stand culpable.
1408
My noble friend is concerned about other aspects about which it is much more difficult to secure information. I refer to people on what I think the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, would know as List 99 in the department; teachers who have qualified in the first instance but been struck off for one reason or another. That is a much more sensitive and difficult issue.
My noble friend raises the issue of the operation of private sector employment agencies in the supply of teachers. Many such agencies are now offering a service to schools, sometimes to help fill permanent posts but more often to provide what are usually called supply teachers who stand in at short notice for permanent teachers when they are absent. When a teacher is appointed to a school, whether permanently or temporarily, a number of conditions must be satisfied. The employer is responsible for ensuring that they are satisfied. The teacher must be a qualified teacher and have the health and physical capacity for teaching. Critically, he or she must not have been excluded from teaching by the Secretary of State on health or educational grounds or on the ground of misconduct. Those conditions are laid down by law for teachers in local education authority maintained and self-governing state schools. They are designed to safeguard the health and well-being of the pupils.
The Committee will readily agree that it is vitally important to ensure that pupils are not exposed to unsuitable teachers and especially to any person who is excluded from teaching because of misconduct against pupils. It is entirely understandable that schools should wish to have teachers' credentials suitability checked by the employment agency before they work in the school. The department is considering how the arrangements for doing that might be improved. We already provide a service to the agencies by checking teachers' names against the list of teachers who are excluded from teaching. Any licensed agency is able to request such a check before accepting a teacher on to its books. That is an important safeguard. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate responsibility again must rest with the employer.
My department is also consulting the Employment Department, which licenses all agencies under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, about the possible issue of guidelines by that department. We are also investigating whether there are other facilities we might be able to make available to help agencies perform a useful service. I do not believe that new legislation is needed for this purpose but I can assure my noble friend that we have the issue clearly in our sights. I shall keep my noble friend informed of any action we may take from the department.
Baroness Young: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I hope that she will address the issue urgently. It is an important issue which we would all agree needs to be dealt with. It is very important that either the agency or the school should be responsible for ensuring not only that the teacher is properly qualified but does not appear on List 99, nor has committed any of these other offences. It should be laid down clearly

1409
who is responsible. If I might leave that point with my noble friend, I should be glad if she could write to me on a future occasion on the issue.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I should be grateful if the Minister would keep me informed too.
Clause 250, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 251 [Publication of financial statements]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 290C:
Page 151, line 36, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 290D:
Page 151, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) in subsection (6) after "with respect to" there is inserted—

"(aa) the planned financial provision in that year specified in the statement prepared by the authority under subsection (3) above", and

( ) for subsection (8) there is substituted—

"(8) The authority shall furnish—

(a) the governing body of each school required to be covered by the scheme in any financial year, and

(b) the governing bodies of such grant-maintained schools in the authority's area and grant-maintained special schools mentioned in section 34(4) (c) of this Act as may be prescribed,

with a copy of each statement prepared by the authority under this section in relation to that year or, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, with such part or parts of it as may be prescribed."
( ) After that. section there is inserted—
"Certification of statements by Audit Commission.
42A.—(1) This section applies where in the case of any local education authority the authority's financial provision for county and voluntary schools is subject to regulation by a scheme.
(2) Any such local education authority shall, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State, require the Audit Commission to make arrangements in accordance with section 29(1) (d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 for certifying such statement or statements prepared by the authority under section 42 of this Act as may be specified in the directions; and any statement under that section shall be treated for the purposes of section 29(1) (d) of that Act as a return by the authority.
(3) The arrangements made by the Audit Commission in pursuance of subsection (2) above shall include arrangements for sending a copy of any such statement or statements as so certified to the Secretary of State.
(4) Directions given under subsection (2) above may relate to any local education authority or to local education authorities generally or to any class or description of such authorities." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 251, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 252 and 253 agreed to.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 291:
Before Clause 254, insert the following new clause:
("Duty with regard to provision of resources
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the funding authorities, local education authorities, governing bodies of grant maintained schools and the governing bodies of voluntary schools in the exercise of the functions conferred upon them by or under this or any other Act to have regard to the principles set out in subsection (2) below.
(2) The principles referred to in subsection (1) above are that—
1410
(a) the resources available for the provision of education shall be distributed so that so far as is reasonably practicable all those seeking access to maintained schools shall be afforded equality of opportunity to benefit from those resources;
(b) in the distribution of resources available for the provision of education in maintained schools, the weighting attached to factors related to age, ability, aptitude and need shall be such but no more than is judged necessary and appropriate to ensure that the skills of each pupil may be valued equally;
(c) no pupil shall be disadvantaged in terms of the share of the available resources for his or her education in comparison with the availability of such resources for other pupils by reason of any policy of specialisation of provision in any school or other educational institution;
(d) every pupil shall so far as is reasonably practicable be afforded access to a broad and balanced curriculum and shall not be disadvantaged in terms of the share of the available resources for his or her education by reason of the fact that his or her primary skills lie outside the core and foundation subjects of the National Curriculum; and
(e) every pupil shall have the right to he educated in a physical environment maintained to a minimum acceptable standard of repair, cleanliness and safety.").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading we made it plain that what we lamented about the Bill was its lack of vision. We were told that it was about accountability, it was about control and it was about management, but where was the vision of where we wanted education to go into the next century? Far be it from us to write the vision for the Government, but what we are trying to do is to introduce into the Bill some sense of perspective. This new clause provides for a basic set of principles to form the foundations of education in our schools. Those running our schools—the Secretary of State, the new funding authorities, LEAs and governing bodies of grant-maintained and voluntary schools—will be expected to respect those principles in making decisions which may deeply affect our children and their future.
Of fundamental importance is the right to a free, high quality education system for all with no reliance on parental contributions; an education service fundamentally committed to equal opportunities for all pupils. Although the Bill adds a national funding agency to the already existing national curriculum and national testing, at present it does not allow for nationally agreed, minimum levels of funding for all our schools. Similarly, there is no commitment to limit class sizes, which we debated the other night. There is no commitment to ensure that existing and new school buildings comply with agreed standards. There is no commitment to provide all schools with books and equipment to an agreed and adequate level, with all schools equitably resourced.
Indeed, there are wide variations between the grants per head even in adjacent neighbouring authorities. The introduction of pupil-led funding has very clearly exposed those disparities in the levels of finance available to schools. We now see that the money available varies significantly between schools even of the same size. Research recently undertaken by Coopers & Lybrand for the National Union of Teachers has revealed a substantial shortfall in the resources necessary to fund the Government's national curriculum. Coopers & Lybrand argue that

1411
over the next five years £4,618 million will be required for implementation of the national curriculum for primary schools. In addition, in secondary schools a further £1,598 million will be needed in start-up funding phased over four years. Then there will be necessary recurrent funding of £484 million.
The effects of the inadequate funding of education on a national basis obviously tends to magnify inequity at school level. The Government have set a series of targets for schools to achieve; for example, that the national curriculum should be taught to all pupils, with the consequent median of achievement according to the national curriculum assessment arrangements; that truancy should be kept at low levels; that there should be comprehensive availability of information to parents; that pupils should be educated in a safe environment, and the rest. Yet it is not clear what the Government consider to be the basic minimum level of resourcing to achieve those targets. Guaranteed standards must be laid down and resourced for all schools to give every child a fair chance. Those minimum standards of provision really must apply across the board.
There is nothing new per se in this call for basic minimum standards of provision for all pupils. What is new is the government's realisation that there needs to be consistency in grant-maintained school funding and that, if consistency of funding is to be achieved, it can only be by the Government themselves determining, and consequently explaining, their criteria for spending levels on education both nationally and at local level.
There is an inescapable argument for equity in funding between schools with similar age groups, intake and educational needs. Each pupil should be entitled to a guaranteed level of service on which the cost of that service should be based. This has clear parallels with the Government's own charter approach for service delivery elsewhere in our society.
The Government themselves have outlined the basic common criteria for achievement in schools in the Education Reform Act 1988. That Act not only defines the national curriculum as a common entitlement; it argues for,
"a balanced and broadly based curriculum".
The new clause sets out the principles to underpin that entitlement: that resources be distributed in a way which ensures the equality of opportunity to benefit from education; that no child should be disadvantaged by disproportionate funding going to selection or policies of specialisation, nor by the fact that a child's primary skills lie outside the core curriculum; and the basic principle that every pupil shall have the right to enjoy education in a physical environment maintained to a minimum acceptable standard of repair, cleanliness and safety. In a Bill which is as long as this, with so much detail about the administration, surely there is room for a reassuring statement of purpose and intention of this kind. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am fully in agreement with the spirit of this amendment. We on this side of the Committee are quite as deeply concerned as anyone on the other side about standards, spelling, numeracy and other questions of this kind. We too recognise that there is a real problem. What we are querying is the appropriateness of the Government's solutions.
I know that the noble Baroness has said twice in the course of debates on this Bill that she has some evidence to suggest a negative correlation between quality and funding. I cannot believe that she takes that too far because, if she did, she would be wide open to criticism for giving any funds to schools at all. As the noble Baroness's face signals very plainly, there is a point beyond which she will not take that argument and it is that point which signals the underlying solid point behind this amendment.
I say by the way that I have been very much irked, in my capacity as a parent, by the noble Baroness citing ILEA schools as an example of this alleged negative correlation. I had two sons in an ILEA school at the moment when the ILEA was abolished. It was a good school before that body was abolished, but as the funding was reduced after the ILEA went, you could see the quality draining out of it. My experience is totally different from that of the noble Baroness. When she made a face of displeasure at what I was saying about negative correlation, she was indicating that there is a basic level, in her mind as well as in ours, below which financial provision should not be allowed to fall.
The question is where that level comes. It has struck me many times that some people in government circles do not really have a concept of a true cost. They are so struck with the virtues of competition that they believe that it is capable of lowering costs indefinitely. It is not. There is a point where, even in the most competitive society, you cannot have something for nothing. There are certain basic minimum items of provision in a school which you cannot have without funding—class sizes, buildings and books, although I know that we cannot get the department to attach importance to books. I ask the noble Baroness: is it true, as reported in The Times a few weeks ago, that a high proportion of the books recommended for Key Stage 3 in English are not actually in print? It really should not be regarded as trivial if the actual process of teaching is brought to a halt because the basic raw materials are not available. That is the solid, irreducible point behind this amendment and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has moved it.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment is drafted in very broad—not to say very vague—terms and it roams extensively across wide areas of policy. The funding of schools is also, inevitably, a rather technical matter.
The noble Lord has justified his amendment by invoking the principle of equality of opportunity. The surest guarantee of equality of opportunity is the national curriculum, which for the first time gives to all pupils the entitlement to study a broad and balanced curriculum, including the 10 core and foundation subjects.

1413
But while the national curriculum lays down the framework of what must be taught, as a matter of common sense it leaves individual schools and teachers a sensible discretion as to how it is to be taught, according to local circumstances and the needs of individual pupils.
The present arrangements for distributing funds for maintained schools allow similarly for local discretion within a national framework. The arrangements sensibly combine the objective allocation of resources between local authorities according to need, with a broad measure of local discretion to tailor spending to suit local circumstances.
Central government make grant available to local authorities, taking account of pupil numbers, adjusted to take account of local factors which affect the cost of providing education: notably the additional educational needs of certain pupils, and higher labour costs in London and the South East. The underlying principle is to give each authority a level of support which would allow authorities across the country to provide a consistent standard of service.
Local authorities in their turn do precisely the same. They distribute funds through their schemes of local management of schools, rooted in principles of fairness and equity of funding. They ensure that local education authorities allocate resources to schools by means of an objective formula based primarily on the number and ages of children, but taking into account also special needs factors in their area. The factor most commonly used by all local authorities is free school meals. Indeed, the very transparency of the LMS funding arrangements reinforces the emphasis on equality of treatment and consistency of funding, but that does not mean that there are equal sums of money attached to every child, irrespective of their needs.
Funding for grant-maintained schools follows the same principles. Each school's annual maintenance grant (AMG) is based on the LMS scheme of its former maintaining authority, with additions to reflect a share of the LEA's previous spending on central services and an allowance for school meals. So grant-maintained school funding takes account of the funding available in each LEA area.
The noble Lord believes that there is a need to provide legal guarantees of equity of funding, but the system already works that way. The guiding principle underpinning the distribution of revenue support grant is that it should be shared equitably among authorities, recognising their variable differences, and the Government go to elaborate lengths, in consultation with the local authority associations, to secure an even-handed distribution. The legal framework for the local management of schools supports the basic principle of equity of funding.
But within that framework, there is a proper and valuable role for local discretion, for which, each authority is accountable to its local electors. This amendment would undermine that discretion and that accountability. I find it extraordinary that noble Lords opposite, who in the past have protested that local government discretion is being limited, now seek to hobble it in this way.
1414
Turning to specialisation by schools, the amendment specifically sets out to prohibit any financial encouragement for specialisation. I find this attitude profoundly depressing. The noble Lord's proposals echo an obsession with uniformity which has long been the enemy of a flourishing education service. Our commitment is to increase the opportunities for schools, pupils and parents, not to oppose them for reasons of dogma.
The implication of the amendment is that no school or pupil should have any benefit of any sort: the dreary philosophy that all should be held down at the same level, just in case one child gains an advantage, perhaps—heaven forbid—through his or her particular talents, whether in art, music, technology or whatever. Specialisation will increase the real choice available to parents and pupils. It will allow parents to choose the school best suited to the needs of their children. It will enrich the experience of pupils.
Our aim of achieving diversity and choice means that there will be some differences between schools, but that in itself will not mean that any pupil need suffer a disadvantage. Every pupil remains entitled to receive the education guaranteed by the national curriculum.
The amendment proposes that no pupil should be disadvantaged in terms of resources because his or her primary skills lie outside the core and foundation subjects of the national curriculum. These subjects are the core of what is taught in schools. If that were not the case, there would be no point in having a national curriculum. But there is already a statutory requirement that they must be taught in the context of the general requirement that the curriculum should be broad and balanced and seek to achieve pupils' spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development.
Schools and teachers are always the first to encourage pupils' talents. I cannot imagine schools disadvantaging pupils in terms of resources because they are particularly good at something outside the national curriculum. Besides, since all aspects of the curriculum will be reported publicly and to parents, it will be in schools' interests to maximise the achievements of all pupils, whether within or outside the national curriculum. That might mean that some children have more money applied to their education than others.
As to repair, cleanliness and safety, there is already a statutory duty on local education authorities and school governors of grant-maintained schools to ensure that school buildings within their responsibility are in an acceptable condition. It is for governing bodies to determine their priorities from the capital and recurrent resources available to them. Underlying all this is the question of the size of the cake overall, but that is another debate and is not related to these amendments. We are talking about the money that is available and how it is distributed.
So far I have dealt with the policy implications of the amendment. But even if your Lordships were minded to accept the principle underlying the amendment, in practice it is thoroughly impractical to lay down these kinds of rules. The amendment

1415
assumes that it is a simple matter to quantify the resources available for one pupil compared with another. On the contrary, it is remarkably difficult. How does one allocate support staff time between pupils? How does one allocate a schools' non-staff costs between pupils? This has the makings of a complex and confusing accountancy exercise, largely irrelevant to the task of educating pupils.
Furthermore, this web of principles, although sufficient to hinder local authorities' discretion, is drafted in such vague terms that it will be impossible to interpret them in any meaningful way.
The fundamental principle of equity of funding is already built into the education funding system. The amendment, I believe, is unnecessary, impractical and a recipe for confusion. It would undermine local initiative and opportunity and would instead impose a stultifying uniformity across the education system.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the one thing that I have always said (and which I shall continue to say) is that it is over-simplistic simply to say that "money in" equals "quality education out". I do not believe that this is a simple issue; it is very complex. It has a lot to do with how the money is spent and deployed and with the quality of the teachers. Of course, money is important. However, nor have I said that I believe that over-simplistic statement to be so untrue that I would end up not funding any school at all. That is an absurd interpretation of what I have said both in this and previous debates.
There is information about ILEA. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to one school of which he has great knowledge. What he said may be so, but the reason that it may not be a good school now may be due to other factors. I can only speak as somebody who operated in a shire county and who looked enviously year after year as money poured into ILEA at the expense of those of us living in more rural areas. Taking that considerable differential, "money in" did not equate to "quality education out". Neither do I believe that class size of itself (although it is important) can provide a straightforward correlation with quality.
I should like to end on this point. We believe that resources for education are very important, and my right honourable friend and I will fight like tigers for our share of what is available in the public expenditure round this year and in any other year for which we are responsible for the service. We will fight for our fair share, but once we receive our fair share, it is then a question of distribution. Our record on this is good. In real terms—that is, discounting inflation—we are now spending 45 per cent. more on the children in our schools than we were in 1979. Although I do nod have the specific figures with me perhaps I may repeat that the number of classes in this country containing more than 30 children is now lower both in the primary and secondary sectors. I refer the noble Earl to the debate on Monday evening for the specific figures which provide the evidence for that statement.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I think that if the noble Baroness looks at the Official Report tomorrow, she will find that we are not perhaps as far apart as she thinks. I agree that it was an absurd interpretation. If she follows what I said, I think that she will see that I was saying so. But, by saying so, she may perhaps concede some part of my argument. May I ask her finally whether she concedes that there can be such a thing as a level of funding too low to permit the delivery of the national curriculum?
Baroness Blatch: Deciding what is available for any service must always be a matter of judgment for any government. We are now talking specifically about education. I would not be able to put a specific figure on it, nor do I believe that primary legislation is the place to do that. I could not say at this moment whether it should be £1,000 or £2,000, or any figure in between. What I know is that a political judgment is made by the government of the day about what can be afforded for public services. Within that, I believe that it is right that education should fight for its fair share and, within that, I believe that we should have the fairest possible distribution. To look to primary legislation for a specific sum of money is, I believe, impossible.
Lord Judd: I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for giving us that lengthy reply to the proposal. We must just dwell on what she said for a moment or two. First, perhaps I may ask her about the SSA system. Does she agree that it is acknowledged on all sides to be imperfect, and that it was designed as a way of distributing central government grant as a minority supplement—that is the point—to locally raised finance? Recently, the advent of capping and the council tax has effectively removed LEA discretion. The inequitable SSA is now what determines local spending. It would have been helpful if the Minister had faced up to and dealt with that point a little in her reply.
I am sorry to say this, but I think that the Minister has again demonstrated a lack of imagination. I do not blame her personally for that because she is a spokesperson for the Government as a whole; but it is this Government who like to make proclamations about one nation. If they really believe in one nation, they have to follow that through in the various segments of national life. They have to establish principles which are unquestionable about how we approach the management of our affairs in each of the segments in England and Wales.
When we come to education, the Minister must surely realise that there are genuine anxieties in many places that what is now happening is a drift back to selection and to competition between schools, with published leagues and all the rest, and that the end product of that will be that we will have success schools and failure schools. That is the nightmare away from which many people on all sides of the Committee believed we had moved finally and completely; we were not going to operate our educational affairs in that crude manner.

1417
I was hoping that the amendment might have achieved some consensus in the Committee that there were principles to which we were all committed, whatever our differences on other aspects of educational arrangements and the rest, and a determination to ensure basic conditions and a fair, level playing field—the expression we all use so often now—upon which flexibility and the work of LEAs, grant-maintained schools and the rest could be based. We know that the position will not be equal, as it is at the moment; that some will be able to maximise their advantage at the expense of others.
I am therefore sad that the Minister has not seen the opportunity tonight to join with us in reassuring the nation that despite the vigorous debates we have about how we organise education, there are certain principles upon which we all agree. Because we believe it to be so important to send a message of hope to children, parents, teachers, dedicated governors and councillors on LEAs and the rest, we are going to pursue the amendment to a Division tonight.
6.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 291) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Airedale, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ardwick, L.

Peston, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Serota, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Guildford, Bp.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

Judd, L.

Warnock, B.

Longford, E.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Molloy, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cadman, L.

Caithness, E.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Astor, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Auckland, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Bauer, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Belstead, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blatch, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Blyth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cranborne, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Crathorne, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Cumberlege, B.

1418

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Moyne, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Munster, E.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Northbourne, L.

Dormer, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dunrossil, V.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Palmer, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ferrers, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Prentice, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Pym, L.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reay, L.

Hardinge, V.

Rees, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rennell. L.

Hayter, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hesketh, L.

Romney, E.

Howe, E.

St. Davids, V. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Sandford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Selborne, E.

Kitchener, E.

Sherfield, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Long, V.

Stewartby, L.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Swinfen. L.

Tebbit, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Teviot, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Milverton, L.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Mottistone, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.32 p.m.
Clause 254 agreed to.
Clause 255 [Inter-authority recoupment]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 291ZA:
Page 153, leave out lines 38 to 45 and insert ("to reflect relevant costs incurred by the local education authority in question.").
The noble Baroness said: I move the amendment in the absence of my noble friend. It is intended to provide that the costs to be charged should be the actual costs and not the average costs. They should be the relevant costs actually incurred by the local authority in question. It is a simple point and I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I rise before the Minister even though her amendment occurs earlier in the grouping. As regards procedure, the usual logical problem arises; that I object to the whole clause. I shall speak first to my amendment and to the others as though I do not object to the clause and then I shall rise a second time to explain my objection to the clause. I shall not make my clause stand part speech under this group of amendments.
If there is to be such a change in the recoupment procedure I support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I should be interested to hear any argument from the Government as to why all

1419
the costs incurred are not the costs which are recouped. We can debate whether we consider them to be the marginal or average costs. I am also intrigued by the Government's Amendment No. 219A, in which they have decided to use the expression:
"the whole or any part of".
That makes no sense but I am open to argument as to why the expression should not be "the whole".
The second point, which relates to my amendment, is that, throughout, the provisions use the word "may" rather than "must". Therefore, two issues arise. The first is that logically regulations may not be made if they "may" be made. The second is that within the regulations there may be examples of recoupment that would not occur. In an area which the Committee has debated at some length it should be without doubt the case that recoupment should occur because otherwise the activity simply will not take place. That is why I have tabled my amendment to include hospital education. I do not believe that any Secretary of State of probity worth his salt will not produce regulations for recoupment. However, we do not write legislation on the assumption that the Secretary of State is a decent person or will do the right thing; we write legislation in order that what we want to happen does happen. That is why I have tabled this specific amendment.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I shall then explain why I believe that the whole clause should be withdrawn.
Lord Henley: I appreciate that the noble Lord will explain why he believes the clause should be withdrawn. It may help if I first speak to the whole clause and then deal with the specific amendment. As the Committee will be aware, at present the schools-related part of LEAs' standard spending assessments is calculated not on the number of pupils actually enrolled in an LEA's schools but on the number of pupils resident in the LEA, whether they attend schools within their home LEA or in another LEA. When a pupil attends a school outside his or her "home" LEA the "providing" LEA can recoup the cost of provision from the "home" LEA.
This system is unsatisfactory and burdensome for two reasons. First, the number of pupils crossing LEA boundaries to attend school is increasing fast. Secondly, the expansion of the grant-maintained school sector makes it increasingly anachronistic for money to pass between LEAs when the main financial relationship is between central government (or the FAS) and GM schools.
The present system shuffles money between LEAs to little good purpose. This clause will end LEAs' right to automatic recoupment, and will give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying the nature and scope of recoupment. Once this amendment is enacted we intend to simplify the recoupment system by two simultaneous changes. First, by calculating the schools' element of SSAs on the basis of the number of pupils attending the LEA's schools, regardless of their LEA of residence. Secondly, by confining recoupment to special cases.
1420
It may well be necessary to continue recoupment where costs are high and the pattern of provision is uneven. In particular, it may prove desirable to retain recoupment for pupils with statements, including those educated in ordinary schools, and it may prove desirable to retain recoupment for special and hospital school pupils, and for children receiving education in other hospitals. I shall deal later with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I can assure the Committee that we will consult local education authorities on these proposed arrangements, and will also invite their views on whether to include other categories of pupils, such as under-fives, in the new arrangements. I can also confirm that the new regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament.
We are minded to introduce the new regime at the beginning of the financial year 1994–95. Although we may retain recoupment for some or all of the categories of pupils I have mentioned, we shall still be able to dispense with it for most pupils, with a consequent saving in the administrative burden of authorities.
Baroness Seear: If the authority providing the service is to be paid less than the authority which is receiving it will that authority have the right to refuse to provide the service?
Lord Henley: I shall deal specifically with the noble Baroness's amendment in due course. At present I am trying to explain that the present arrangements are to some extent unnecessarily bureaucratic and burdensome in providing for automatic recoupment—that is, merely shuffling money from one authority to another. If the SSA is to be based on the number of pupils attending a school in that authority, there is no need for recoupment from the other authority because the authority in which the pupil is at school provides the money. In other words, it is the money following the pupil or rather, the SSA is based on the number of children attending the school rather than the number of children living in the area. That seems to be a perfectly logical and sensible arrangement which saves a great deal of shuffling money around.
The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would, I fear, lead to prolonged, unnecessary inter-authority wrangling and would impose a huge administrative burden, taking up time and money which would be better spent on providing education. In addition, I believe that it is wholly unnecessary.
I understand the point that actual costs incurred by local authorities in providing education may be different from the average recoupment rates, but I would ask the noble Baroness to look carefully at the flexibility already provided by Clause 255.
Subsection (1) (a) of that clause provides that recoupment between authorities shall be for whatever amount they agree between themselves. In practice, what happens at the moment is that the Council of Local Education Authorities recommends a national set of rates, varying on a regional basis, and authorities either use those rates or, using them as a basis, reach local agreements, based on their knowledge of the individual pupils involved and the

1421
education provided. The Secretary of State only imposes a recoupment rate if a recoupment claim cannot be sorted out locally.
The second point to note is that subsection (3) of Clause 255, which is the subject of the amendment, is only permissive. It does not say that the regulations must provide for the amounts payable to reflect average costs. Indeed, the regulations could provide for the amounts payable to be based on a different principle. There will be no general direction from the Secretary of State that all recoupment claims must be dealt with on the basis of average costs.
Finally, I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on hospital education. I realise that he gave a specific example. We are well aware of the view, strongly voiced by several noble Lords at an earlier stage of our proceedings, that the funding of hospital education needs to be safeguarded.
In the Government's forthcoming consultation document, we shall be inviting views on the future scope and nature of recoupment. We shall in particular seek views on the desirability of retaining recoupment for the various kinds of hospital education. To that extent, this amendment seeks to anticipate the outcome of that consultation. Again I stress that the regulations resulting from that consultation will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will be debated in this Chamber.
The Government cannot accept an amendment to require recoupment whenever hospital education is provided for more than half a day. Many pupils' stay in hospitals is extremely short, and they will receive only a short period of education. There is an obvious danger that the administrative cost of recoupment would be larger than the sum recouped. No doubt the point which the noble Lord made can be taken care of by consultation.
My noble friend's amendment is a minor technical one. The new subsection (3) of Section 51 states that:
"The regulations may provide for the amount payable from one authority to another … to reflect average costs".
The amendment would allow the regulations to provide for those amounts to reflect the whole or any part of the average costs. That would allow slightly greater flexibility when drafting the regulations so that one possibility might be to allow the authority importing pupils to receive basic credit for the pupils in its grant from central government but to recoup any extra marginal costs of provision from the pupils' home authority. Therefore, the amendment extends the possible range of options for recoupment which can be canvassed in the consultation exercise which we intend to conduct with the LEAs.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness sufficiently so that she will withdraw her amendment. I hope that I have dealt with most of the noble Lord's queries about the clause itself but no doubt the noble Lord will decide whether he wishes to speak on the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Peston, replies, perhaps I may respectfully point out to him that his amendment does not fit into the clause as it is. The clause is entirely an enabling clause but he turns it into an obligate clause in respect of one detail only. The amendment would have to be redrafted even if he wanted it dealt with in substance.
The other point is that it seems to me that the point which the noble Lord is after is taken care of when the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch is made to the clause. That enables the whole of or part of any costs to be dealt with in the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has just given one example of "part" of the cost. Therefore, there would in any event be an overlap if the amendment were accepted.
Baroness Seear: I have listened to what the Minister said; and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to Withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 291A:
Page 153, line 38, after ("reflect") insert ("the whole or any part of the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 291B:
Page 154, line 4, at end insert ("save that the Regulations must provide for amounts payable for pupils in hospital education where the period of education is in excess of one half day.").
The noble Lord said: Within the context of the clause, I found the noble Lord's remarks reassuring. Indeed, given the new view of statutory interpretation, when the regulations are made under the affirmative resolution procedure, if subsequently a hospital school felt that it was being dealt with incorrectly, it could at least quote some of the reassuring comments made today. Therefore, I shall not take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on the difference between what is obligatory and what is permissive because I was trying to argue that the provision should be obligatory.
[Amendment No. 291B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 255, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peston: There is more than one reason why we should discuss this Motion. Unless the Minister tells me I am mistaken, this is a very, important change in the way in which local education is financed. This is a major change to education finance in this country.
I believe that I am right (but I stand ready to be corrected) that that major change was never debated in the other place. Therefore, it seems to me that when a total change in the way in which we finance local education is proposed, we have an obligation to ask whether that is a sensible way of doing things. It always seems to me to be illogical that we discuss the general principle of a clause after we have discussed the detail of it, but that is the way in which our procedures work and that is why I must speak a second time on this Motion.

1423
The recoupment question is essentially a balance of payments problem. Certain local education authorities are exporting school places and certain other authorities are importing them. In the normal way in which accounting and remuneration takes place, the buyer pays the seller. Indeed, I should add that given the Government's whole philosophy here and in other areas, that is clearly the correct logical way to do it and it is how it has been done up to now.
I listened very attentively to the noble Lord but I still do not understand why these changes must be made. Equally, I am advised—again, I am always open to the noble Lord's arguments and evidence—that there is no major bureaucratic problem; quite the contrary, the present system, as I understand it, is working quite well. It can be expected to work well because that is the correct way to do things.
Those are the reasons why I felt that one had a duty to raise the matter: the Government are actually choosing an illogical way of dealing with the problem. Indeed, I go further. I do not understand why anyone would choose to deal with a problem if there was no problem in the first place. All my advisers tell me that there is no problem and that the present system is proceeding satisfactorily. Therefore, why are the Government suddenly announcing that it is bureaucratic? There is no evidence whatever to show that it is bureaucratic, nor that it has gone particularly wrong. Rather, to the extent that it has gone wrong, it could be dealt with in minor ways.
I do not want to delay the Committee any longer, but, bearing in mind the fact that this is the first time the subject has been discussed generally in either place, it seemed to me that one had a duty at least to place a few thoughts before Members of the Committee before proceeding to other matters.
Lord Henley: I think that the noble Lord is making something of a mountain out of a molehill. I explained in some detail—and I hope that the noble Lord is grateful—why we consider that the old system was bureaucratic and unnecessary. I also explained why we are making the changes. But it is not a major change in the way local authorities are funded for education; it is simply a change in the way we arrange the recoupment. The new arrangements quite simply streamline the funding system and make some savings in LEA administration, which I am sure the noble Lord welcomes, by ending an unprofitable network of bureaucratic transactions.
Quite honestly, I simply cannot see why anyone can object. In any event, the Bill merely establishes the framework for making new rules. I have given an absolute and categorical assurance that we will consult the LEAs on the details of the new system, especially for categories of pupil for whom recoupment will be retained. I have also given an assurance that the regulations, when they come forward, will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Clause 255, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 291C.
After Clause 255, insert the following new clause:
1424
("Grants for the education of travellers and displaced persons
—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the payment to local education authorities of grants in respect of expenditure incurred by them in making provision, the purpose (or main purpose) of which is to promote and facilitate the education of persons to whom this subsection applies.
(2) Subsection (1) above applies to a person if—

(a) by reason of his way of life or, in the case of a child, his parent's way of life he either has no fixed abode or leaves his main abode to live elsewhere for significant periods in each year;

(b) he fell within paragraph (a) above within a prescribed period immediately preceding the making of the provision in question; or

(c) he is for the time being resident in temporary accommodation.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) above may—

(a) prescribe classes or descriptions of expenditure in respect of which grants are payable under the regulations;

(b) provide for the determination of the amount of any grant so payable;

(c) provide for the payment of any such grant to be dependent on the fulfilment of such conditions as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations; and

(d) provide for requiring local education authorities to whom payments have been made under the regulations to comply with such requirements as may be so determined.").

The noble Earl said: I move the above amendment on behalf of my noble friend. It would empower the Secretary of State to make grants for the education of those who might otherwise be slipping through the net—that is, transients, travellers, itinerants, people of no fixed abode and people in temporary accommodation. At present, such people do not always receive an adequate education. We believe that the amendment is necessary because the present state of the law under Section 210(2) (c) of the Education Act 1988 empowers the Secretary of State to make grants for education for people who are resident,
"in a camp or other accommodation or establishment provided for refugees or for displaced or similar persons".
We do not think that that description in the 1988 Act covers all the likely cases. In particular, it does not cover the case of those who necessarily, because of their parents' occupation, have to travel. For example, it used to be notorious in Birmingham that the children of the bargees were normally illiterate because their parents were always travelling. They were not based in any regular local authority area and it was no one's responsibility to educate their children. Being under pressure, local authorities will always tend to give priority to those they recognise as being their responsibility. Therefore, if we want them to take responsibility for itinerants, we shall have to make available some money.
Apart from the bargees, the proposed new clause would also apply to the homeless. On many occasions Amy noble kinsman and I have discussed the plight of people in bed and breakfast accommodation. I can recall the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, drawing his attention to the fact that a great many of those children do not receive any regular schooling. That is a pity and something for which, in the long term, we may have to pay. It may perhaps be a good idea for the departments to get together on the matter. As my

1425
noble kinsman happens to be on the Front Bench, perhaps he could on occasion let his left hand know what his right hand is doing in the matter.
The proposed provision would also apply to refugees. When we debated refugees during the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, recalled trying to communicate with a Somali child who was a refugee. There was no common language between them. She tried to offer him a bar of chocolate in the hope of reassuring him, but he did not know what it was.
There are very considerable problems which will all involve the local authority having to incur costs. We have here what I think is known loosely as the "Hillingdon problem", which is a very regular and well known one. I believe that the amendment kills a good many birds with one stone. I think that that is economical. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, stands in as an imperfect substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, while I stand in as an even more imperfect substitute for my noble friend Lady Blackstone. As I was only given the job a few moments ago, I am happy to say that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has covered all the main points. I simply wish to make one technical point.
Looking at the proposed new clause as drafted, it seems to fit quite logically with Clause 255. Essentially Clause 255 is a grant system of recoupment where one is discussing pupils in one LEA using the facilities of another. In a sense, the travellers and displaced persons are pupils who are not really part of an LEA, and so on. Yet again, the same logic would suggest that the procedures under Clause 255 should be used to fund the LEAs which educate those pupils.
Logically, it seems to me that Amendment No. 291C fits neatly with Clause 255. My reading of the clause as drafted —though perhaps the Minister can enlighten me on the matter—is precisely that it cannot be used for that purpose because it refers to pupils in one authority with respect to another. That is not quite the same thing. However, it seems to me that the spirit of Clause 255 could easily be carried over to accepting either Amendment No. 291C or a suitable amendment to Clause 255 to do exactly the same job.
Lord Renton: I do not doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord; indeed, I never do. He really has put forward a case which, at any rate in part, deserves consideration and which, as he pointed out, is partly covered by existing law. But the proposed new clause seems to me to be most extraordinarily wide.
If we look at subsection (2) of the amendment, provision would have to be made,
"by reason of his way of life"—
that is, the child's way of life—
"or, in the case of a child, his parent's way of life".
The phrase "way of life" is a very broad concept. Any way of life would seem to enable provision to be made. Of course, whether it should be made is another matter and very debatable. The subsection goes on to speak of a person of "no fixed abode". One always feels sorry for children whose parents are just wanderers and who do not take the trouble to settle
1426
down into any kind of normal civilised life. I must point out that I am expressing a purely personal view; but, in such a situation, in order to ensure the child's education, I should have thought that it would be better for him to be taken into the custody of the local authority. It is very difficult to generalise because such hard cases must vary enormously.
Another circumstance which is mentioned in the proposed new clause in subsection (2) is where someone,
"leaves his main abode to live elsewhere for significant periods in each year".
I am not quite sure how that is intended to work. Does it mean that the child may have to move so as to be with his parents when they are in the main abode and then move to another area of an education authority when his parents are moving elsewhere?
Admittedly, it is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to prescribe the period of movement from the main abode to live elsewhere. But the Secretary of State will have to take a somewhat difficult decision in some cases. It is difficult to see how regulations would provide for the enormous variations. I am expressing only my own point of view. I do not know whether the Government agree with it. I feel that this provision is extremely wide, and I can see various difficulties arising with regard to it.
The principal problem, I would have thought, is the great problem (the ancient problem) of gypsies. Over the years that problem has been dealt with more or less satisfactorily. It is very difficult sometimes to deal with. The modern variant of gypsies, less praiseworthy, are the new age travellers. They seem unlikely to co-operate with authority at all. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
7 p.m.
Lord Peston: This is an important point, and it may help if I clarify what we have in mind. We are very definitely at odds. At least the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and myself are at odds; I am not sure about the noble Earl, Lord Russell. So far as we are concerned, we may not care for travellers and gypsies and all that sort of thing (or fellow travellers even) but their way of life happens to be perfectly legitimate in our country. It is not illegal to do that sort of thing and, even though it may not appeal to us, we nonetheless have responsibilities to such people—and more to the point, to the children of such people.
Lord Renton: Our responsibility in the context of this Bill is to their children.
Lord Peston: Yes, indeed, it is to the children. But it is certainly no help to say that the way to deal with the problem is to say that they are taken into care. The point is that these people move from place to place. Even though it is not my way of life—I find the idea of moving under any circumstances quite horrifying—these are fellow members of our society and their education is important. Indeed, we have obligations regarding their education. The central point is that therefore funding should be adjusted to those obligations. That is the point at issue. It is not to my knowledge the case—again the noble Earl, Lord

1427
Russell, may be able to enlighten us—that the existing arrangements are satisfactory. Local authorities sometimes bear a disproportionate burden—or, more to the point, their ratepayers (council tax payers) bear a disproportionate burden. The purpose of the amendments is exactly to allow for that. I hold back from making any value judgment about other people's ways of life. I do not believe it is my business. But I do believe that those children deserve a decent education. Indeed, they are obliged to have a decent education under the national curriculum, and the relevant resources must be made available to the bodies that provide it. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he stood in as an imperfect substitute for his noble friend Lady Blackstone, and my noble kinsman stood as imperfect substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I will complete the hat-trick by saying that I stand in as an imperfect substitute for my noble friend.
The amendment seeks to extend the scope of Section 210 of the 1988 Act to enable the Secretary of State to pay grants to local education authorities for the education of persons for the time being resident in temporary accommodation.
I should like to argue that the amendment is unnecessary and would be unworkable in practice. There is no reason to assume that people living in temporary accommodation have by definition any particular educational needs of the kind that Section 210 grant is intended to address.
The aim of Section 210 is to enable the Secretary of State to pay grant to the LEA and also to further education colleges to promote and facilitate the education of travellers and of those who are for the time being resident in a camp or other accommodation or establishment provided for refugees or for displaced or similar persons. The grant replaced an earlier arrangement known as the "no area pool" which enabled local authorities to claim additional funding from central government to meet the educational needs of people who are not ordinarily resident in their area. That included nomadic people and displaced persons who were living in camps or reception centres on first arrival in this country, and later included the bargees, about whom my noble kinsman spoke so eloquently and feelingly.
Section 210 grant supports extra provision made to meet the particular educational needs of travellers and of displaced persons over and above what is normally provided in school. Section 210 was never intended to provide the sole means of support for their education. The LEAs receive allowance in their revenue support grant to meet the basic educational needs of all pupils, including travellers and displaced persons, based on numbers recorded in the annual pupil count.
The education element of revenue support grant contains a generous weighting for the costs of meeting additional educational needs of this kind, including needs that arise from social factors. Those authorities which benefit most from this weighting are those
1428
London authorities where, as the noble Earl says, the problem of housing in temporary accommodation is most acute.
My noble kinsman was also concerned that LEAs should receive funding for those who are temporarily housed outside their normal authority of residence. Under the present arrangements, the authority where they are ordinarily resident already receives credit for those pupils in its standard spending assessment. The authority providing the education can recoup the cost of education from the authority. We have just moved on from Clause 255, and under the system which we propose to introduce under that clause, an authority will receive funding based on the number of pupils in its authority regardless of their authority of residence.
My noble kinsman also asked about what help there was for those local authorities faced with the unexpected influx of displaced persons. The Department of the Environment announced two schemes in February to help local authorities facing unexpected hefty demands as a result of displaced persons. Those demands will not be purely on the educational service. One scheme is for those from former Yugoslavia and one is for unaccompanied children. Again, Section 210 grant is not designed to deal with those specific short-term needs, and the LEAs have to submit detailed project proposals well in advance of the start of that year for which funding is sought.
Quite apart from any considerations as to the merits of this particular amendment, which, as I have already explained, I argue is unnecessary, I should inform the Committee that it is defective, since it contains no provision for the repeal of Section 210 of the Education Reform Act, whose provisions, with the exception of subsection (2)(c), it largely replicates. I hope therefore that my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I congratulate my noble kinsman on completing the hat-trick. I also listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He is, I believe, creating real difficulties. But the amendment was also concerned to meet real difficulties. I do not argue that the drafting is perfect.
But let us take, for example, the "way of life". It was intended to apply to people such as bargees, or people whose parents work in a circus. That can make matters extremely difficult. I am sure that the noble Lord understands the sort of situation to which those words were intended to apply. Should the Government be minded to do more, I am sure that if we sat round a table, we could reach an acceptable wording. On the other hand, I wondered about the suggestion of taking the children of gypsies into care and whether that was perhaps a bit draconian; and whether, in the light of the Orkney case, it was a particularly timely suggestion.
With regard to the phrase "significant periods of the year", again I see the problem of definition. But there are categories of people, notably migrant workers, for whom one needs some phrase of this order in order to indicate what is meant. I can imagine, say, a single parent who is a travelling actress possibly needing very much to take advantage of a

1429
form of words of that sort. I believe that these difficulties, though genuine, are not insuperable. If this were to go further, we could discuss it.
I am grateful to my noble kinsman for the care he took in answering. I am not sure that I am convinced by his case. I shall have to read what he said very carefully. His answers in relation to Section 210 illustrated why Section 210 is not sufficient. He said that people who stay in temporary accommodation do not have a particular need, but we are concerned about providing ordinary schooling for people who are in temporary accommodation, moving, and so forth. Therefore, if Section 210 does not cover that, its wording ought to be changed.
I listened with interest to what my noble kinsman said about the pool. Here the Government appear to be suffering from the degree of confidentiality involved in the assessment of standard spending assessments. If cards were placed on the table so that it was known how much was available for what, we would be able to understand each other a great deal more quickly than is sometimes possible.
I heard what my noble kinsman said about the amendment being defective. I take that point. Having listened with care, and being grateful for much of what was said in the reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 292 not moved.]
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill begin again at 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fire Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
7.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th March be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order introduces amendments to fire safety requirements broadly in line with those already put into effect in Great Britain by the enactment of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987.
The main purpose of the order is to amend the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which is the main legislative instrument for controlling fire precautions, in order to afford better protection for the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.
I shall come to the detailed provisions in a moment, but before doing so perhaps it would be helpful if I reminded your Lordships that the central feature of the 1984 order is the requirement for those occupiers of premises, put to a use designated by order made by the department, to obtain a fire certificate from the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland. Fire certificates
1430
require that premises he provided with adequate means of escape, means of fighting fire and other necessary fire alarm measures.
While the present system of fire precautions has on the whole worked well, it is clear that amendments can be made to secure improved standards. The desire to improve safety standards prompted a review and a consultation exercise in Great Britain in 1985 which resulted in the enactment in 1987 of provisions similar to those contained in this amendment order.
The order would confer powers on the fire authority to exempt certain low risk premises from the need to have fire certificates, while at the same time imposing a statutory duty on occupiers of exempted premises to have adequate means of escape and fire-fighting equipment, for which the department will issue a code of practice. It would also provide for limited charges for the administrative costs of issuing or amending fire certificates, impose a duty on the occupier of exempt and non-certificated premises to provide reasonable standards of fire precautions, impose upon the owners or occupiers of premises who have applied for certification a statutory duty to maintain a certain level of fire safety while their application is pending, enable the issue of prohibition notices in respect of premises where there is serious risk to persons and, finally, impose on the fire authority a duty to carry out programmes of inspection. The department will give guidance about which types of premises should he inspected and how frequently. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th March be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for his explanation of the order. We on these Benches fully support the order. It strengthens the law relating to the safety of premises against fire risk.
However, the order comes seven long years after the introduction of similar provisions for the mainland. I am sure that the Minister will know that the Fire Brigade's Union has been pressing for the order for years. One wonders whether the delay reflects the Government's odd sense of priorities. Can the Minister explain to the House why it has taken seven years to bring the law in this respect in Northern Ireland into line with that of Great Britain?
I see that the order is to be backed by a code of practice regarding means of escape and fire-fighting. Can the Minister say whether the code is already in draft form and whether it has, been the subject of consultation? Moreover, can he say when it will come into force?
The legal status of codes of practice is immensely variable, as the House will know. However, the legal significance of this code is clearly set out in the proposed Article 31 B. That being so, can the Minister please explain why it is necessary to introduce Article 44A(a)?
I have two questions about Article 29A(2) (c). First, if a certificate imposes a limit on the number of persons who can be on the premises at any one time, will the holder of the certificate be guilty of an offence if the limit is breached, if only for half an hour?

1431
Secondly, in the absence of a computer at the entrance to the building, how can the holder of the certificate possibly ensure that the limit is not exceeded at any given time, particularly where people are constantly moving in and out of the building, as they would, for example, where the premises are a licensed club? Is that not an impracticable condition? I should welcome some light on those two matters.
Finally, I have a couple of straightforward questions about the structure of the fire service administration in Northern Ireland. I am sure that these questions will pose no difficulty for the Minister. Will the Minister tell us what body in Northern Ireland is responsible for maintaining the local fire brigade? Is it the department, or has that responsibility been devolved to a district council? I am conscious, as all Members of the House will be, that the fire service in Northern Ireland carries an exceptionally heavy burden of responsibility, for which we are all deeply grateful. In many ways its services are allied very closely to the civil defence functions. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm to the House whether the fire service is currently up to its establishment and whether there have been any problems in relation to recruitment in any particular part of the Province.
I trust that the Minister can help me with those few questions. We gladly support the order.
Lord Meston: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I wish to join in welcoming this order. I make only one point, which is to reiterate the hope which was expressed in another place that the authorities will be sparing in the grant of exemptions, particularly for properties in multiple operation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Meston, for their questions. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in particular asked a number of searching questions which I hope to be able to answer. He raised a number of points concerning codes of practice, the maintenance of the fire brigade and breaches of an exemption certificate. I shall deal with each of the detailed points in turn.
With regard to codes of practice, I am advised that a draft of the code has already been prepared. It will be circulated to interested parties for comment before being issued in its final form to coincide with the enactment of this order, which is likely to be in late August.
In relation to the code of practice, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to Article 44A(a). I should explain that its purpose is to make it clear that nothing in the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, as amended by this order, confers a right of action in civil proceedings in respect of any contraventions of the 1984 order.
The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland is the body responsible for maintaining and securing the services of the fire brigade. It is almost up to full establishment and no particular difficulties have been encountered regarding recruitment.
1432
In regard to breaches of exemption notice, I should explain that the number of persons to be specified in an exemption notice would be an ad hoc figure and intended as a safety guide in premises which are regarded as low risk. Such premises by their nature would be limited in size and consequently would accommodate relatively few persons, either employees or persons expected to be there. Any breach of the number specified would not in itself constitute an offence. However, if exempted premises were altered in such a way that their use would involve a greater number of persons than that specified, the occupier would be guilty of an offence under Article 29A (1) if he did not advise the fire authority accordingly. Premises such as clubs, to which the noble Lord referred, would be subject to licensing by local authorities and would fall outside the scope of these provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked the interesting question: why so late? Why is it seven years after the GB order? The Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 introduced for the first time in Northern Ireland provisions relating to fire precautions which had been in operation in Great Britain since 1971 by virtue of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. Shortly after the enactment of the 1984 order, the Home Office decided to amend some of the fire precaution provisions. Those were ultimately incorporated in the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987.
As the new provisions of the 1984 order had only just become established in Northern Ireland, the department did not consider it opportune to make the further changes introduced by the 1987 Act. Consequently, and in the knowledge that neither the people of Northern Ireland nor their property would be exposed to any risk or damage, the department decided to defer action on the proposed amendments for a few years. Work commenced on the Fire Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order in late 1990. The order would have been enacted in late 1992 had it not been for a considerable delay caused by the general election.
However, I would add that one of the main provisions of the order relates to exemption from fire certificates. In the six-year period leading up to this order, I can assure your Lordships that neither life nor property was at any greater risk due to the absence of those provisions. The existing provisions would require full certification.
I take the point about which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked. It is certainly an interesting one. If I may, I prefer to write to him. I can assure him that I shall do that by the end of next week. I should like to make quite sure that he has an accurate and correct answer. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
7.24 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th April be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships I shall speak also to the draft Family Law (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1993 which was laid before the House on the same date.
The main order makes a number of important changes in family law in Northern Ireland. The opportunity is taken to amend the law relating to the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage, the publication of press notices in register office marriages, domestic violence and the procedure for obtaining a divorce. The order also contains provisions to improve the system for the collection and enforcement of maintenance payments.
Articles 6 to 11 of the order contain provisions to extend the powers of the High Court, divorce county courts and courts of summary jurisdiction to specify the method of payment to be employed when making or dealing with a maintenance order.
Article 3 removes the requirement for the parties to certain register office marriages to publish notices of their intention to marry in the press where at least one of the parties fails to state a place of worship usually attended in the notice of marriage. This requirement, which serves no useful purpose in modern times, has been strongly criticised by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and others both as an invasion of the privacy of the couple and as something which is discriminatory to those who seek a civil rather than a religious ceremony.
Article 14 relates to the law on domestic violence in Northern Ireland. Paragraph (1) replaces Article 19 of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 with a new provision to make the breach of a personal protection order or an exclusion order a specific criminal office. Paragraph (2) amends Article 21 of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 and streamlines the procedure for obtaining ex parte interim personal protection and exclusion orders.
Article 15 amends the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and removes the requirement for the court to hear the petitioner's oral testimony in divorce cases based on two years' separation with consent or five years' separation. This will enable rules of court to be made to devise a new procedure for those cases, which may be similar to the "special procedure" currently in use in England and Wales.
The removal of the oral evidence requirement will spare the petitioner the humiliation of having to appear in open court and publicly recite the details of the marriage breakdown. It will also produce a considerable saving in time expended by the judiciary on divorce work and will enable court room time to be used more efficiently.
I wish to reassure your Lordships that this provision will not remove divorce from the courts' supervision and will not reduce the dissolution of marriage to an administrative formality. We are satisfied that this procedural change will not affect the message, enshrined in the law, that marriage is a serious and permanent commitment and that divorce represents a fundamental change in a person's legal status.
The order effects some useful and important reforms in family law in Northern Ireland and as such I commend it to your Lordships' House.
The consequential amendments order makes amendments to the Maintenance Orders Act 1950, which Act extends throughout the United Kingdom. The amendments are purely consequential reflecting the maintenance enforcement provisions in the main order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th April be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, again I thank the Minister for explaining the provisions of the order. It seems to us to be moving family law in the right direction. It is supported by these Benches. I am certainly not unmindful of the importance of each of the 11 changes effected by the order. However, perhaps I may single out two of the articles which appear to me to be sensitive and perceptive.
First, I am sure that Article 12 will bring satisfaction to wives who are being treated with violence by their husbands. The article allows the police henceforth to institute proceedings in breach of a personal protection order or an exclusion order. Violence does not cease to be violence merely because it is violence within marriage. Article 12 therefore gives effect to an important and overdue reform.
I, for my part, also have special praise for the first article, which is even more overdue. As the Minister said, it gives effect to a recommendation of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, so it seems to remove an unjust and inequitable provision which I believe has its origin in 19th century legislation.
Having praised the order, I have to say that I believe that in Northern Ireland family law is an area where the department has to do some hard and careful thinking and listening. Further changes are required. Clearly, Northern Ireland must move in the direction laid down by the Children Act and.we look forward to early legislation in that respect.
However, as the order is called a family law order, I trust that it is appropriate for me to touch upon one other issue. A week ago, at a meeting in one of the Committee rooms, a number of noble Lords, under the auspices of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children—the chairman of which is the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—met a large and influential deputation of professional workers in the health and social services fields in Northern Ireland. They had travelled to Westminster to convey to us their deep anxiety about the Department of Health's intention to encourage the setting up of community trusts to

1435
deliver child care services, among other services. They had travelled to Westminster because they found it difficult to obtain a hearing in Northern Ireland.
That deputation stressed to us that the department's policy was totally inappropriate. The members assumed that the department's policy resulted from a slavish following of the GB model, without recognising that the organisation of the health and social services in Northern Ireland must be undertaken differently. The noble Earl presides over the Department of Health in Northern Ireland and I envisage that he will receive the deputation's request to reconsider the policy. I therefore urge the Minister and the department to listen carefully to the anxieties which, I am assured, are being voiced right across Northern Ireland. I am not certain what comfort the noble Earl can give me which we can convey to the deputation that came here from Northern Ireland.
Finally, I have a couple of straightforward questions which I mentioned in a letter to the Minister. We should like to know how many divorce petitions have been filed in Northern Ireland during each of the past three years; how many decrees absolute were granted in respect of each of those years; how many child custody orders were made in each of those years; and how many children there are in care in Northern Ireland. I should be grateful if the Minister could provide that information, as we believe that it is relevant and important to a discussion of family law in Northern Ireland.
Turning to the consequential order, we are pleased to give it our full support.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. All the provisions which he has introduced are welcome. It always seems rather strange that changes in the law in Northern Ireland seem to lag so far behind those which are made in England and Wales, and Scotland. However, that means that when they come to be considered in the Northern Ireland context, they will at least have stood the test of time in this part of the United Kingdom.
Here, among other matters, we have the equivalent of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 and the Maintenance Enforcement Act of 1991. I had the privilege and responsibility of introducing the 1986 Act in your Lordships' House. It was the product of a report by the Church of England under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Seear. The Bill produced extensive debate at every stage of its progress through your Lordships' House and I recall the difficulties which we had and the need to impose the nearest one is ever likely to come to a three-line Whip on the Bench of Bishops. The Bill passed through another place without debate in about three minutes flat.
The 1986 Act in England, Wales and Scotland set men free to marry their mothers-in-law. It will not surprise noble Lords to realise that it has not shaken civilisation to its roots nor caused enormous queues at the churches or registry offices. However, it met a few deserving cases. I recall that in the weeks following the
1436
implementation of the Act, I received a fairly steady stream of small boxes of wedding cake, and I hope that the noble Earl is similarly blessed.
As to the 1991 Act for maintenance enforcement in England and Wales, which is now to be introduced in Northern Ireland, it adds to the armoury of enforcement of maintenance orders dealing with the more recalcitrant maintenance payers and giving certainty to those who are the recipients of maintenance.
I also welcome the improved mechanisms for dealing with exclusion and protection orders and the new limits on oral evidence in undefended divorce cases. Simply to read that it is now, in 1993, necessary to provide for that under the procedures in Northern Ireland, makes one realise how far behind the Province lags. In England and Wales, undefended divorces have not required oral evidence for many years. That is certainly a step in the right direction in sparing parties the ordeal of having to give oral evidence in open court. For those reasons, we welcome all these improvements.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, again I thank both the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Meston, for their welcome remarks about the order. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to further developments in family law which he considered desirable. I can certainly tell him that the drafting is now complete on the children order and that we are considering arrangements for its publication.
The noble Lord also raised a number of specific questions relating to divorce in Northern Ireland. In reply, I can tell him that factually there were: 2,401 divorce petitions filed in Northern Ireland in 1989; 2,281 filed in 1990; and 2,619 in 1991. Figures for 1992 are, I understand, not yet available.
In the same years, the number of decrees absolute of divorce were: 1,812 in 1989; 1,893 in 1990; and 2,301 in 1991. The numbers of child custody orders are not available, but the numbers of children involved will give the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, an indication. In 1989, 3,014 children were involved; in 1990 it was 3,231, and in 1991, 3,795.
In 1990 and 1991, approximately 25 per cent, of divorcing spouses were childless, while most divorcing spouses had two children. In the years 1989 to 1991, no orders were made under Article 46 of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 committing children to care.
As regards the deputation on community care attending a meeting in your Lordships' House at which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was present, yes, I shall certainly undertake to see such a deputation at the appropriate time. I suggest that that should be during the consultation period, which I think will start in some two or three weeks' time. When the consultation period commences I shall look forward to seeing a deputation on this matter, but in the meantime I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that all will be well as regards community care in Northern Ireland. It is my job to convince people that that is the case and that is certainly what I intend to do when the deputation comes to see me.

1437
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for all his helpful and interesting remarks. I certainly agree with him that the provisions have stood the test of time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Law (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1993
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th April be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 10 minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.41 to 8.10 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 256 [Musical instrument tuition]:
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 293:
Page 154, line 17, after ("pupils") insert ("(unless such pupils have special educational needs)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should tell the Committee that I interpret the phrase "having special educational needs" to refer to all children, whether or not they have a statement from the local authority, who have been assessed as having a need which requires extra provision at school if it is to be met in accordance with the code of practice.
It is clear that a number of children with special educational needs would greatly benefit from instrumental lessons. It is also clear that the parents of many children would not be able to afford them. The Department for Education tends to use as a guide to how many children with special educational needs are in a school the rather crude criterion of how many of them have free school meals. If that argument is followed, which works out not too badly, it is plain that many children with special educational needs in schools would not be able to afford instrumental lessons.
There is no need to worry that there will be an enormous number of such children. It will be entirely for the school to decide which children who have special educational needs would benefit from' instrumental lessons, whether by themselves or in a small group. But, though not enormous, the number would be considerable. However, even if the child in question was not particularly talented, he or she would gain from the lessons. There is no doubt that many children with special educational needs learn amazingly fast when they have the full attention of one teacher. Many of them enormously enjoy music and the new confidence that comes from learning to play an instrument—no matter if one does not attain world-class performance—is of great benefit. Simply
1438
being able to manage a strange instrument or play on a keyboard instrument is a great builder of confidence and the lessons themselves are enormously beneficial.
There is another reason which is quite different and is not a therapeutic reason at all. I suspect that among children who might well be classed as having special educational needs, particularly those with emotional and behavioural difficulties as well as those with sensory difficulties, lurks a very large amount of talent. I suppose we all have heard of the amazing young deaf percussionist who is a world star performer and performs entirely through the vibrations made by the percussion instruments. She would never have been able to develop in that way had she not been able to have percussion lessons.
Among other children, including particularly blind or partially-sighted children, there may be very many talented people, particularly perhaps keyboard players. There is a great mythology of blind piano tuners but there is no reason to suppose that such people would emerge as knowledgeable about the keyboard unless they could have instrumental lessons at school.
I put forward this amendment not as an enormously influential amendment but as one which will not only be useful but not particularly expensive. It might release a great deal of otherwise totally wasted talent. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am not quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has fathomed the implications of this rather unusual amending clause. Clause 256 contains what is in effect a double negative; namely, "exceptions from the prohibition". I find that rather a confusing conception. As I understand paragraph (a) which follows that phrase. it means that it includes something that can be done. It is not an exception from prohibition. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Henley can explain the matter.
If it is something that can be done, there is no need to add the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, wants to insert. Again, it would be a mistake to assume that all musical instruments appeal to every person, whether or not he or she has special needs. I am one of those people who dislike pop music. So does my very severely handicapped daughter. She loves light opera—Gilbert and Sullivan—and even traditional jazz, but she winces at pop music.
I believe that we are in a state of some uncertainty with this clause, which I have no doubt my noble friend Lord Henley will quickly remove.
Baroness David: I shall leave that point to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to sort out. It seems to me that this is not a case of listening but of participating in making music, either with an instrument or something else, which is extremely therapeutic. For some of those children—I repeat that it is not 2 per cent. but probably 18 per cent. of children who do not have statements—who may be particularly involved in this activity, especially if they have emotional difficulties or are disruptive,

1439
playing an instrument is extremely good. It is well known that it is excellent therapy. For those reasons I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Addington: I should like to support the amendment. The noble Baroness is right when she points out that a very important therapeutic effect can be derived from participation in any activity and particularly something creative, such as music, for those with special educational needs. That applies across the whole area of special educational needs and indeed the approximately 20 per cent. of children covered by that term in schools. One is giving those who have known failure an area where they can excel. I hate to have something of a confrontation with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It does not matter what type of music it is as long as the children enjoy playing it.
Lord Judd: I do not think I am alone in saying that this is probably one of the most important debates we shall have on the Bill. It is about one of the rich inheritances of this country—music. It is something in which this country excels. I believe strongly that if we are taking seriously the contribution to be made by education to the future of the United Kingdom, we should be looking at the strength in our cultural tradition of music and the rest and seeking every possible means of building on it, extending it and making it still greater.
We hear reports that European youth orchestras have had to introduce special blocks because of the strength of British applications to join them. Because of the talent produce they would be in danger of becoming British rather than European orchestras. When we have a crisis of identity which preoccupies many of us so much of the time about what is Britain, what our role is and what we stand for, music is something that we represent instinctively and well to the world. The amendments therefore are central to an important part of our lives.
I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and my noble friend Lady David for tabling the amendment. They speak with real insight, experience and commitment. They are making a stand for those things which are so important in our lives. My own view of the amendment is that pupils with special educational needs, without statements, are often the children who can most benefit from the facility; their parents and guardians are often those who are least able to afford the tuition, not least because they must make so many other special provisions for their children because of the needs with which they are confronted.
I turn to Amendment No. 293A. Currently, the Bill proposes that schools will be able to charge for music teaching where the tuition is provided either individually or to a group of no more than four pupils. By eliminating Clause 256, the amendment would prevent schools from charging for such tuition. The amendment seeks to ensure that children from whatever socio-economic background can still participate in small group or individual music tuition sessions. If the amendment is not accepted, it is likely
1440
that such music teaching would become the prerogative of children from better-off families to the exclusion of those whose families could not afford the fees. Such a policy would exclude a whole range of talent from an important school and curriculum opportunity.
Activities which are part of the curriculum should be freely and equally accessible to all pupils. Clause 256 is the thin end of the wedge in regard to charging for state education—in exactly the wrong area. The development of children's talents should not be dependent upon their parent's ability to pay.
Unashamedly I recognise that Amendment No. 293B overlaps Amendment No. 293C. I say that before the Minister candidly points it out to me. However it is only because of our strength of commitment on the subject that I hope the two will be seen as mutually reinforcing.
In relation to Amendment No. 293B, arts education and the provision of music in schools are a vital part of the curriculum that aims to provide for the spiritual, moral and cultural development of children. I am sure that the Minister agrees with that. Arts education has been adversely affected by changes in the education service in a number of ways. In general, the national curriculum demotes the place of the arts in favour of other subjects. Overcrowding of the curriculum, particularly in the last years at secondary school, led to changes last year. As we know, arts subjects are now optional at 14 while other foundation subjects remain compulsory. Schools are advised to offer arts and music as curriculum subjects post-14. We believe that there should be one compulsory arts subject for all children. But there is no requirement on schools to provide that subject choice post-14.
In addition, local management of schools and the general underfunding of the service has meant that many services which were previously provided by LEAs no longer exist. Inter-county co-operation has dwindled as a result and that has affected such activities as school orchestras, theatre-in-education and theatre visits.
There is grave anxiety that an apparent lack of commitment to arts education on the part of government has left it vulnerable to cutbacks arising from LMS, and charging policies have exacerbated it. An increase in the grant-maintained sector will only further restrict the provision of services that rely on inter-school and county co-operation.
On a practical level, the co-operation which has existed between local authorities and national bodies like the Arts Council is likely to suffer. The tasks of those bodies in encouraging high standards of performance and participation in artistic ventures will be monumental when they have to communicate with governing bodies of schools or small groups of schools. The educational experiences of children result from the co-operative efforts which have been organised effectively on a local authority basis for the past 40 years. That is the demonstrable basis of what I was describing earlier—our excellence in music.

1441
Cultural pursuits are unlikely to be maintained without the stimulus provided by many education authorities.
That leads naturally on to Amendment No. 300C—the introduction of the new clause after Clause 265. The new clause seeks more specifically to promote music in schools and exempt music provision from Clause 265. There are three aspects of music education. We need local and regional structures to support and maintain our youth orchestras, choirs and bands.
Referring back to a discussion we had earlier on the Bill, I hope that I did not misunderstand the Minister. I had the impression that she was saying that there was a choice available; that one could either have provision by the local authority on this basis or one could have the individual schools doing their own thing. She may recall that she waxed quite poetic about it. I am still looking forward to the details of the trip we shall make together. She challenged me to go with her on a voyage of exploration of cultural activities in our schools.
If I can he quite candid, the Minister misunderstood the situation. It is not an "either or" situation. The county orchestras stretch the schools. Higher standards can be established on a county basis and that has a directly beneficial impact on what goes on in individual schools because children are striving to join the county orchestra or whatever. It is a point that we must recognise; that is, that the regional structures have been supporting and maintaining what is happening in individual schools.
We must ensure also that there is access to instrumental lessons for all children, especially those whose parents cannot or will not pay. We also need a range of performance opportunities which meet the practical demands of the national curriculum. In a civilised society that cares about its children and its talent, it is not good enough to say that parents can make provision. We have been covering implicitly and explicitly how far that is true. There is an argument as to how many parents really can afford it. But what about the child whose parents choose not to afford it? Do those talents go unfulfilled? Are those children to be punished because of parental irresponsibility or lack of imagination or sensitivity? Are we prepared to settle for that in a civilised society?
It is on record in the other place that the Government believe that the Local Government Act 1972 allows a local authority to maintain a band or orchestra. Eric Forth put it clearly on 18th February when he said,
"This clearly allows LEAs which currently make such provision to continue to do so and to allow pupils who attend GM schools to participate".
That relates closely to the arguments used earlier by the Minister in another context.
The Local Government Act 1972 followed similar Acts of 1948 and 1963. All three Acts relate to the powers of local authorities to spend money to support arts and entertainments. But we need to address the education of our children, not local authority "entertainments". They are not the same and we must recognise that.
1442
The provision of music in schools forms part of the national curriculum aims to promote the cultural development of children. It should not be reliant upon a patchwork of parental contributions, commercial sponsors and trusts. Local and regional structures are needed which interlock with and—as I have described it—"stretch" the teaching of music in our schools.
Larry Westland, director of Music for Youth—whose main aim is to make sure that all children in the United Kingdom have the opportunity to make music in their communities—has called on the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that youth orchestras, bands and choirs are guaranteed the essential teaching and structure upon which their future rests. I argue that so far the Government have failed to provide those guarantees. Instead, the Minister, Mr. Eric Forth, has said that the Government wish to remove LEA provision to make way for others to provide an adequate alternative.
During the Report stage debate in the other place the Minister gave examples of grant-maintained schools that were already purchasing services, including music. However, it is clear that most individual schools cannot provide the musical opportunities offered by an LEA. The Bill prevents these schools from co-operating with LEAs and denies the children in such schools a valuable part of their education. Nor can clusters of schools match the provision of an LEA-wide service. By seeking to duplicate LEA provision they will drain away many of the economies of scale that an LEA offers in terms of specialist teaching and the provision of musical instruments. Children in all schools will suffer.
The new clause does not compel a grant-maintained school to make use of LEA music provision. Its significance is that it allows grant-maintained schools to make the same value judgment as concerned organisations, such as the Royal Academy for Music, Musicians' Union, Music for Youth and the National Union of Teachers, to choose to retain local education authority services for music tuition and its related activities. It is extending the choice of grant-maintained schools to do it if they so wish rather than debarring them from doing it.
I believe it is worth turning to some of the refreshing thoughts on this subject of people outside this Chamber. Simon Rattle has said that instrumental tuition helps to create future appreciative audiences and it is a false economy to cut off the feeder supply of skilled players and listeners. Nik Kershaw has said that there should be more music in our schools, not less. Children should have the right to be taught both how to make and appreciate music. In citing the example of violinist Nicola Loud, who won the prestigious BBC Young Musician of the Year Award in 1990, Larry Westland said that she would never have started to play the violin at the age of four if it had not been for Haringey Borough Council's free instrumental teaching service.
I hope the Minister will forgive me. I do not believe that she is a Philistine; I believe that she is a committed person who cares as much about our nation as any of us. But I plead with her not inadvertently to let herself become part of a move which will remove or

1443
undermine one of the richest elements in our society. Let her bring all the strengths and passions which she so well demonstrates at the Dispatch Box to saying that we are all the time strengthening something in which we already excel. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord sings very sweetly. I hope I can sing as sweetly in response.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may be permitted to intervene. I take a very different view of Clause 256 from others who have spoken. From the point of view of those schools with which I am involved, this is an opportunity to raise additional funds for more music. There is nothing about this clause that reduces the amount of funds available for music, nor is there any intention on the part of any of the schools in which I am involved to divert funds away from the music tuition that is provided. It merely gives us the ability to put on additional music lessons for parents who are prepared to pay. In view of the economies of scale that are provided in terms of getting teachers to the schools and providing them with a decent amount of business while they are there, the clause should enable us to provide additional music for pupils who are not paying.
Baroness David: What about the parents who cannot afford to pay? Their children may be just as musical. I am disappointed. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was going to support this side. I am staggered. There may be additional music for some people; there may be none for some of those who cannot afford it. The situation is ridiculous.
Lord Lucas: In answer to the noble Baroness, a great number of parents at our schools are providing private music tuition for their children anyway. All this clause enables them to do is to have it provided at the school, and the advantage to the school is that the teachers who will be there can, because of the marginal savings involved, be used to provide free music lessons to pupils whose parents cannot afford to pay.
Lord Henley: I presume that the noble Baroness does not wish anyone to be allowed to pay for anything in relation to education. Those on this side of the Committee believe in the freedom of parents to pay for education if they wish, and that that should apply also to musical education.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, like other Members, quite rightly stresses the importance of music in our education. What we argue, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Lucas, is that this clause and our amendment to the 1988 Act seek to build on that and to further the opportunities for musical education for our children.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I shall not be diverted into a discussion of the merits of different types of music. My noble friend Lord Renton asked me about the wording of the 1988 Act quoted in this Bill—"exceptions from the prohibition of charges in maintained schools"—which my noble friend found rather confusing. It seems quite clear to me that what Section 106 of the 1988 Act deals with is charging. It
1444
contains a list of activities which are exempt from charging. This amendment merely adds to that list of exemptions those who may be charged if their group is less than four strong. Clause 256 extends the ability of schools to charge for instrumental music tuition from individuals to groups of no more than four pupils. It responds to calls from those concerned with instrumental music tuition to allow greater flexibility in the law.
I turn first to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. That seeks to prevent children with special educational needs from being charged for instrumental music tuition. Like the noble Baroness, I agree with her that music can be of enormous benefit to some children with special educational needs and can allow them to achieve a great deal. Certainly, we should not deny that. Some pupils with special educational needs will have received statements from a local education authority, and some will not. Where instrumental music tuition, or indeed any kind of provision relating to music, is specified in the statement as part of that provision, the tuition will have to be provided free of charge; in other words, music tuition can be built into the statement.
I also remind the Committee that pupils in maintained schools, whether or not they have statements or special educational needs, cannot be charged for any activity, including instrumental music tuition, where this is required by the national curriculum or is part of the syllabus for a prescribed public examination for which the pupil is being prepared at the school. Such provision will remain free of charge. What we are discussing is an optional activity which schools can offer or not as they think fit. As such, I can see no reason why, if a charge is to be made, children with special educational needs whose parents wish them to undertake instrumental music tuition should be treated differently from other children.
I turn to Amendment No. 293A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I presume that he was speaking to that amendment as well as the Motion that the clause shall not stand part. I presume that the aim of the amendment is to prevent children being divided into chargeable groups, but I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I emphasise that we are discussing merely an optional activity, not one that is part of the national curriculum or one related to a prescribed public examination. It is possible that the effect of the noble Lord's amendment will be to impede the provision of instrumental music tuition. It may be that in a school a dozen students wish to learn the violin, for example. As I read the noble Lord's amendment, that may be considered to be a common programme of tuition. As a result, the school will be prevented from charging for such tuition. The outcome may well be that provision will be withdrawn by the school on the ground that it cannot afford to offer the tuition free of charge. The school will not be able to arrange for the pupils to be taught in groups of four at a reasonably modest cost to the parents or even, at rather more cost, on a one-to-one basis. Of course, if the school did wish to provide instrumental music tuition to pupils free of charge, it would be free

1445
to do so. But the reality is that in most cases parents would have to make their own arrangements outside the school. For this reason I believe that, whereas Clause 256 is a welcome increase in flexibility, this amendment would have the reverse effect and might in fact act to reduce the amount of music tuition in our schools.
Turning to the noble Lord's other two amendments, Amendments Nos. 293B and 300C, Amendment No. 293B seeks to place a duty on schools to provide facilities for music, theatre-in-education and arts education. The first part of Amendment No. 300C seeks to place a duty on schools to provide music tuition. I perhaps do not have to remind the Committee that art and music are foundation subjects for pupils up to the age of 14. Schools are under a duty to implement the requirements and ensure that pupils should be given opportunities to undertake a balanced programme of activities. As far as music tuition is concerned, if, beyond what is required in the national curriculum, schools wish to offer pupils the opportunity to learn an instrument, they are free to do so. Many do offer such opportunities. But that must be for schools themselves to decide.
The second part of Amendment No. 300C—I should say in passing that I will not pick up the noble Lord for the fact that, as he so kindly reminded the Committee, the two amendments are incompatible—gets us back into the local authority trading discussion. Effectively, it would exempt local education authorities from the constraints which apply to the provision of music services other than to their own schools, and which apply to the provision of any local authority service under the Goods and Services Act 1970.
My noble friend has already explained the background. The Government do not believe that local education authorities should be in the business of trading with other local authorities or with public bodies, including grant-maintained schools, beyond the margin of the capacity which they require to provide services to their own schools. That point applies here as well.
Music provision is a classic case of what can happen. First, let me make one point clear. I should like to repeat what was said in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Forth, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. On the specific question of county orchestras and bands, Section 145 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives LEAs specific power to assist in enabling orchestras and bands to set up. Whether they do or not will of course remain a local decision but where they do, the law allows pupils who attend grant-maintained schools to participate without any question of a designation order under Clause 265.
As to the provision of other music services, in particular by peripatetic teachers, the pattern of provision is already diversifying. Grant-maintained schools are already making use of the private sector providers which are emerging. I could give examples, as my noble friend has done and as my honourable friend did, hut I shall not delay the Committee.
1446
In addition, as we discussed earlier, LEA services all over the country are on the road towards, and in some cases have achieved, independent status which significantly expands their power to offer services to whichever school they want, wherever they want. My noble friend quoted her own authority, Cambridgeshire, which has established the music service as a business unit and has, as a result, increased musical opportunities and musical provision in that county.
The effect of this amendment would be to inhibit the further development of ventures—my noble friend quoted the Kirklees LEA earlier—and put at risk the potential benefits to schools which arise from them. That is why I cannot support the amendment. I hope though, going back to the original amendment, that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, will be satisfied with the explanation that I have given. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. He has opened up some fascinating possibilities which I did not know existed; for example, if a child gets a statement he or she will have free instrumental lessons. That is yet another reason why parents will now demand statements for their children.
Secondly, he told us that if a child is taking a public examination—
Lord Henley: If I may put the record straight, I said that musical tuition could be built into the statement. This is important because I do not want the noble Baroness to think that there is any automatic provision for those with a statement.
Baroness Warnock: I perfectly understand what the Minister meant. It might be that, even so, some highly musical children could get statements and get their instrumental lessons free. That would be good.
Secondly, if a child is sitting for a public examination of which instrumental playing is a constituent part, then he too will get his lessons free. That is quite a considerable piece of knowledge that I did not have before. There are almost entirely practical O-level and A-level syllabuses for which, if a child was intensely musical and wanted to do them, he could perhaps get his instrumental lessons free if his parents could not pay. That too would be good.
But I am somewhat surprised at the total indifference to the very large body of children over the past 20 or 30 years who have been in no position to pay for instrumental lessons and who nevertheless have ended up as very considerable musicians. The principal flautist of the London Symphony Orchestra is an example. This is an enormous source of talent. I have to express deep regret not so much that this amendment will not be accepted but as to the spirit of indifference to the financial problems and the waste of talent which seems to be not confined to music. It really influences our present attitude to education—the thought that there is a vast number of children who could do better than they do both for themselves and for us as a society.

1447
I express great regret. If there is any way in future in which this question, particularly the financial question, might be addressed by Ministers, I should be extremely grateful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 293A:
Page 154, line 17, after ("pupils") insert ("save that no charge may be made in respect of such tuition where it is provided individually or to a group of pupils not exceeding four in number as part of a programme of tuition provided for pupils in the school exceeding four in aggregate.").
The noble Lord said: I shall not pursue the amendment tonight. I intend to withdraw it. In doing so perhaps I may say, not for the first time in deliberations of this kind, that my nightmare is that we are in the process of becoming a nation which knows the price of everything and the value of little. I cannot think of much that would do more for the morale of Britain than to say that we are setting out to establish that this thing in which we excel will be available to every child irrespective of social background or parental income. When the Minister says that a school might withdraw because it was too costly to provide the tuition group of 12 or whatever, surely the challenge there is to say that if we really believe in this thing and see its value to Britain, we should not put the school in that predicament. I shall withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 293A, not moved.]
Clause 256 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 293B not moved.]
Clause 257 [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools]:
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 294:
Page 154, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) In exercising his powers under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall act with a view to ensuring—

(a) that the premises of aided schools and special agreement schools are adequate to meet the needs of the schools and are kept in a satisfactory state of repair having regard to the health and safety of persons using them and the need to prevent deterioration of the buildings which form part of those premises, and

(b) that, having regard to other calls upon public expenditure, grants are made available to facilitate desirable alterations to aided schools and special agreement schools.").

The right reverend Prelate said: In moving Amendment No. 294 I shall speak to Amendment No. 295. I think it is as well that I should say bluntly at the beginning that Clause 257 as it stands is unacceptable to the Churches and, I guess, to other voluntary schools. There are two reasons. First, there is the general point that the clause alters the basis on which grants are to be paid to aided schools. It turns what has been a duty on the Secretary of State to provide grants into a power to do so if he so decides.
Some grants are already at the discretion of the Secretary of State but others are not. Grants for repairs and some alterations are mandatory. To make all grants discretionary is to put aided schools totally
1448
at the mercy of any future Secretary of State. He could decide without notice or consultation to reduce or withhold grants and aided schools would become financially throttled. They would then be forced to become controlled or grant-maintained.
We cannot agree to the handing over of aided schools to the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State. The contents of the subsections of the clause are alarming and I shall come to those in a moment. But, before I go further I remind the Committee that this clause was introduced into the Bill at the last stage in another place and so it has not yet been properly scrutinised—in fact, it has not been scrutinised publicly at all. The Churches did not have sight of the clause until 24 hours before it was tabled. It is true that there had been earlier discussions between the Churches and DFE officials on the general principles some time back but no formal agreement was then reached. So no discussion of the clause with the Churches took place before it was tabled and the Committee in another place did not consider it.
The way in which this clause was introduced is as unsatisfactory as its content is unacceptable. Therefore, I should like to hear the Government say that they will reconsider the whole clause. In case they do not say that, I have two modest, almost tinkering, amendments which may help but hardly do justice to the depth and extent of our anxiety.
My first amendment seeks to qualify the discretion of the Secretary of State, making it clear, so to speak, that it is exercised in continuing the dual system as we have known it. Something along those lines is essential if the clause is to stand substantially as it is. The Secretary of State cannot be left with unfettered discretion over whether to continue grants to aided Church schools.
Secondly, the detail of the clause causes us anxiety, if not alarm. The Secretary of State can now withhold grant, vary its rate and claim it back if the school is closed. That will complicate planning and budgeting for Church schools. It will leave us in uncertainty and reduce our assets which are there precisely to enable us to sustain and develop Church schools.
Perhaps I may give three examples. A school built in the 1960s has a flat roof. It needs replacement next year at a cost of £50,000. In 10 or so years' time it will need re-roofing again—another £50,000. Then, because of local re-organisation, the school closes. A flat-roof building as such will have virtually no sale value and the chances are that we shall have to sell a cleared site. But we shall have to return £100,000 to the Government, plus any other grants that the school may have received. So it is clear that when some Church schools close we shall not only have no sale proceeds but we shall be owing the Government money.
The second concerns insurance. At present the Government meet 85 per cent. of the cost of repairs and so an aided school insures the buildings on the basis that 80 per cent. of damage—say, by fire or vandalism—will be met by the state. That will no longer be certain and so insurance premiums for Church-aided schools, we are advised, will have to be increased by 600 or 700 per cent.
Thirdly, a local education authority may alter the age of transfer from junior schools and seek the co-operation of the local diocese; and the diocese may agree to a number of school closures, only to find that the Government aggregate together all the sale proceeds of the schools to be closed regardless of whether there is any geographical connection and reduce accordingly the grant to any aided school which may need extension because of the rearrangement. If those circumstances prevail, the Committee will obviously see that the dioceses are not likely to co-operate with any re-organisation plans put forward by the local education authority.
So my second amendment is an attempt to ensure that when re-claiming grant the lower rather than the higher of two methods of calculation is used. That is modest indeed and it does not engage with the wide-ranging menace contained in the detail of the subsections. It is just a modest token of our deep anxiety.
I recognise that the Government have a problem. They do not want to have a demand-led financial commitment in a cash-limited economic policy. I see that. There must be some limits to government expenditure on aided schools and I acknowledge that. But the details in this clause will sap the trust of the Churches and of others in the voluntary sector. Make no mistake, the Roman Catholic Church stands shoulder to shoulder with us on this and so do the Free Churches.
Department for Education Ministers have gone out of their way to commend the Church schools and to give them assurance and encouragement. We welcome that. The Government have met, and are meeting, many of our concerns and we appreciate that. But I fear that behind the warm and welcoming words of the Department for Education is the cold heart and dead hand of the Treasury. So I plead with the Government to think again.
The existing situation, despite its defects, might be better than what is proposed here. But if this clause is not amended the Government risk undermining the confidence and good will of the voluntary sector. It will be left open to the cynics to say that the Government, who have openly said that they want Church schools to go grant maintained, are going to drive them to do it through financial stealth rather than parental choice. But surely the truth is not that but that there has been healthy and productive co-operation between Church and state in education over the years. Do not let us put that at risk. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I speak with great humility for the Roman Catholic Church in this context and I support every word that the right reverend Prelate said. We are extremely worried by this provision. It changes the whole financial basis of the partnership between Church and state which has existed since 1944. As regards premises, as the Committee will remember, currently the Secretary of State is obliged to pay 85 per cent. of the cost of repairs and maintenance. It is easy to accept that, in a situation where we are all short of money, it is not possible for the Secretary of State to commit himself to provide 85
1450
per cent. of any demand for repair and maintenance. In fact, in practice over the past few years the Churches have been very reasonable in deferring their demands where it was felt necessary to do so.
I can quite see the need to build into the Bill some provision for joint decision about priorities and about what expenditure should be made. But when that decision has been made, surely it must be absolutely clear that the state has the obligation to pay its share and not the option to pay any share it feels inclined to pay.
I now turn to Amendment No. 295 which relates to the situation where premises or equipment are sold. The amendment which we are suggesting would correct what is an iniquitous proposal in Clause 257(8) (a) and (b) of the Bill which confers on the Secretary of State the right to require repayment of just as much as he feels like having repaid; not merely the total amount of the loan or the grant which has been made, but any greater amount that he cares to name in relation to the value of the property. I feel that that proposal is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. The amount which is repayable must be related either to the amount of the grant which has been given or to the amount which is realised in the property—and to whichever is the lesser, not whichever is the greater, of the two. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: We are very fortunate at present in having Ministers in the Department for Education who are wholly supportive of Church schools of every denomination—and long may it be so. But some of us have lived through the period of the final years of the ILEA which was positively inimical to Church schools. I fear greatly that at some future point we could find ourselves in the hands of a Secretary of State who feels as the authorities of the ILEA felt in those days and who is positively anxious to discourage the growth or even the existence of schools dedicated to any form of Christian education. It is for that reason that I ask my noble friend the Minister to take this point seriously.
It may be that the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate goes further than the Government would be happy to go, but I hope that something of the spirit of subsection (4) of the clause can be eliminated—perhaps by Government amendments—so that it is not left to the Secretary of State to allow a Church school to remain in working condition for the pupils who attend it.
I do not read subsection (8) (b) to give the licence to the Secretary of State that has been suggested. I hope that I can hear some reassuring words from my noble friend the Minister about the intention of the clause.
In conclusion, I return to my grave anxieties—not about the present Ministers at the DFE, in whom we are very fortunate—but about the possibility of a very different regime in the future and the use which could be made of subsection (4).
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: As far as I understand it, the matter in dispute is that Clause 257 no longer

1451
provides mandatory grant to voluntary aided and special agreement schools' governing bodies to keep their buildings in repair. We have been told that, at present, if the governing body can supply its 15 per cent. contribution, there is a requirement on the Secretary of State to supply the other 85 per cent. We have heard in very strong language that the Churches believe that it is necessary for the present position to continue in order to maintain voluntary aided school buildings.
Perhaps I may take a slightly different perspective and say that the local education authorities themselves are very concerned and, indeed, have an interest in ensuring that voluntary aided school buildings are maintained because, if the provision is not made in the schools, the provision would have to be made by the local education authorities. We have heard phrases from the Bishops Bench such as, "Sap the trust of Churches" and other strong language—language which we usually hear from these Benches. I urge the Minister to take the concerns as expressed extremely seriously.
Earl Russell: We have heard from the right reverend Prelate that the Roman Catholic Church and the free Churches stand foursquare behind the amendment. If I might box the spiritual compass, I should like to say that as an unbeliever, I do too. I am a firm believer in religious as in political pluralism. On that basis, it causes me profound alarm that the Government should have the sort of power over Church schools which is here described. On behalf of these Benches, I offer the right reverend Prelate our full support.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to pick up on something which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said about language. I admit to a sense of shock about the language used. I have become used to vigorous and honest debate, but I was shocked by the presentation of the amendment by the right reverend Prelate. He said that he thought that the intention was to drive Church schools to become grant-maintained "by stealth". I take that accusation—
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Would the Minister—
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may finish what I am saying. I take that accusation not to be a criticism of the Treasury, which was subject to a previous comment by the right reverend Prelate, but to be a direct criticism of the present ministerial team. There cannot be any other accounting for that phrase because it is myself and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who are positively responsible for the policy of creating grant-maintained schools.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Would the Minister accept that I said that it will be left open to the cynics to say that the Government, who have openly said that they want Church schools to go grant-maintained, are going to drive them to it? I went on to say that surely the truth is that there has been healthy and productive co-operation between Church and
1452
state. I was precisely wanting to indicate that I did not take that cynical view but the Minister, I was suggesting, must take on board the fact that there will be people who give it that interpretation.
Baroness Blatch: If I have misinterpreted the right reverend Prelate, I unreservedly apologise, but I put together both the tone and language that was used in the presentation of the amendment and coupled that with the article that was recently in the press.
Turning now to the amendment, Clause 257 replaces the existing provisions relating to the payment of grant to voluntary aided and special agreement schools. It provides a power for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to pay grant to the governors of existing schools and to the promoters of new schools in respect of any expenditure incurred by them on the provision, alteration or repair of premises or equipment for the school.
The clause also enables regulations to be made which will set out how proceeds of sale of redundant school buildings will be taken into account in determining grant allocations for related new building works. It also sets out procedures for the recovery by the Secretary of State of assets provided or enhanced by grant-aid when those assets are no longer used for the purposes of the school. I shall return to those issues in a few moments.
We believe that Clause 257 introduces a simpler and more flexible arrangement for the payment of grant and removes anomalies and difficulties in the current regime—first established in rather different circumstances almost 50 years ago—which have been identified over recent years. The changes are not, in my view, as far-reaching as the right reverend Prelate has suggested. It is true that the existing duty on the Secretary of State to grant-aid repairs at 85 per cent. of expenditure is to be substituted by a power to grant-aid repairs at up to 85 per cent. of expenditure. The only other duty currently on the Secretary of State is to grant-aid at 85 per cent.—not up to, but at 85 per cent.—of expenditure a very limited category of alteration work—that required to be undertaken by the LEA to secure that the school complies with the School Premises Regulations. That duty is also converted to a power to pay grant at up to 85 per cent. of expenditure by Clause 257.
The current duties in respect of repairs and certain alterations involve an open-ended commitment on public funds which, we believe, is inconsistent with the principle that public expenditure should be constrained by the availability of resources. The Secretary of State has no present duty, but only a power, to grant-aid other expenditure incurred by aided or special agreement schools.
I should like now to turn to Amendment No. 294, tabled by the right reverend Prelate. The amendment would place the Secretary of State under a duty, when making grants under Clause 257, to act with a view to ensuring that the premises of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools are adequate to meet their needs and are kept in a satisfactory state of repair, and also that, within the constraints on public expenditure, grants are available for desirable alterations. While I

1453
have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, we consider that it is both unacceptable and, I fear, unnecessary. It is unacceptable because it is not clear to what extent it places the Secretary of State under a duty to allocate resources for repair and alteration work. It appears to return him to a duty to grant-aid such work and, indeed, to extend the present duty to fund only a limited category of alterations to cover virtually all alterations. The amendment has a number of undefined terms such as "adequate", "satisfactory" and "desirable". The result could be endless arguments over what they mean, and we must conclude that a provision formulated in those terms would leave the Secretary of State wide open to frequent legal challenge of his funding decisions. I am sure that the Committee will sympathise with my desire to avoid that.
Since 1988 there has been in place with the Churches an agreement that, should limitations on the availability of resources dictate it, there would be a rationing of grant for repair work. In the event, we have not had to invoke that agreement. Consistent with the need to protect public funds, my department also considers whether the details of repair work submitted for funding suggest that it is necessary and that it represents adequate value for money. In discussions with the Churches we have made it absolutely clear that, notwithstanding the conversion of the duty to a power, our policy will be to continue to grant-aid repairs, subject to the scrutiny by the department that I have just described. The Churches have also expressed concern that the Secretary of State may decide to contribute to repairs at less than 85 per cent., which would have implications for the amount of insurance cover governors need for their contribution. But, in response, we have also made it quite clear, and I am happy to say again in this Committee, that the Secretary of State's policy is to continue to set the rate of grant for all necessary repair expenditure at 85 per cent. and that there is no need for governors to renegotiate their insurance cover. The clause is drafted as it is to enable flexibility in the rate of grant for other expenditure, as is the case now.
As the Churches are aware, we have been considering whether we should bring forward a government amendment which would go some way towards meeting their anxieties. I have, however, been advised that it is not necessary to do so, and for the same reasons the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate is also unnecessary. The governing bodies of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools have functions which they cannot escape undertaking, by virtue of statute and common law. Those functions include securing that the school is able to serve its purpose and that the health and safety of the occupants is reasonably assured. The governors therefore have a duty to effect any repairs which are related to those functions. They may do so with assistance from their LEA, under the powers in Clause 258; from the Secretary of State; or from other sources. But, where the only assistance available is that of the Secretary of State and his clearly stated policy is that he will fund necessary repairs—and I have already said that it is—then a decision on his part
1454
not to do so (thus preventing the governors from undertaking their functions) would place him at a considerable risk of a successful legal challenge. That is the advice that I have been given and upon which our view rests that there are already sufficient safeguards in place to meet the Churches' concerns.
I now turn to Amendment No. 295 tabled by the right reverend Prelate. This amendment strikes at the heart of the provisions in Clause 257, which are a response to the general government requirement to enable the recovery of assets which have been provided or enhanced by grant-aid to charitable bodies should the assets cease to be used for the purposes for which grant was paid. We have also had extensive discussions with the Churches about this provision. It will have a very limited application, where assets of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools are not otherwise recycled for educational purposes. The assets of virtually all such schools are held by the trustees and on discontinuance are recycled for educational purposes by one of a number of measures in education or charity law. The requirement to secure recovery of grant or an appropriate proportion of the value of the assets will be restricted to property made available for school purposes which is owned by persons other than the trustees and is made available to them under a new lease or licence agreement entered into after the coming into force of the legislation. In other words, I should make it absolutely clear that no requirement for repayment will be attached to grant being paid in respect of school premises owned by the trustees. Provision to enable the Secretary of State to attach requirements to the disbursement of public funds is not new—it appears in existing education legislation and in earlier parts of the Bill.
Clause 257 provides that the baseline amount from which the Secretary of State will determine how much should be repaid to him will be the greater of either the actual grant paid in relation to the premises or the proportionate market value of the premises which is attributable to grant. Having established that baseline amount the Secretary of State will then decide how much, if anything, should be returned to him in the light of the circumstances at the time of the taking out of school use of the premises. The right reverend Prelate's amendment provides that the baseline amount would be the lesser of the two amounts which I have just described, but I am afraid that such a provision would not at all be in keeping with the protection of public funds. For example, we provide £1 million as an 85 per cent. contribution to the cost of the building of a school extension in 1994 on land not held by the trustees. In, say, 2020 the building and land are taken out of school use and we are then looking for a recovery. If in 2020 the value of the land and buildings is considerably in excess of £1 million, we would expect to have returned to us at most 85 per cent, of the actual market value rather than the amount of grant which we provided in 1994. Otherwise, the owners receive a windfall gain at the taxpayers' expense. The right reverend Prelate's amendment would enable recovery of a maximum of

1455
only £1 million in my example. That is unacceptable and I hope that he will agree with my reasons for believing so.
We intend that these recovery provisions will operate in accordance with administrative procedures. I give an undertaking now that we will consult with the voluntary-aided and special agreement school providers on those procedures and will take their views into account before they are introduced.
The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, although he is not in his seat, will know that we consulted the Churches on the provisions of Clause 257 at a very early stage and that we have had many meetings with them to discuss the measure since the introduction of the Bill in the other place. Until very recently the indications were that the Churches were broadly content with our proposals, though I recognise that some concerns remained. I hope that the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk will be persuaded from what I have said that their anxieties are not well founded and that the right reverend Prelate will withdraw his amendments. The changes to the grant regime are not as substantial as he believes and are certainly not, as he suggested in an article in a national newspaper early this week, a licence to rob the Churches.
Perhaps I may return to the wording of the amendment. The right reverend Prelate opened by saying that the amendment on the Marshalled List offered discretion. I certainly recognise discretion in paragraph (b), which states,
"that, having regard to other calls upon public expenditure".
But I have difficulty in finding any signs of discretion in paragraph (a), which provides,
"In exercising his powers under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall act with a view to ensuring"—
and "ensuring" can mean only one thing—
"that the premises of aided schools and special agreement schools are adequate to meet the needs of the schools and are kept in a satisfactory state of repair having regard to the health and safety of persons using them".
I have no difficulty with that. However, remembering that the Secretary of State shall act and has a duty to act to ensure that, the amendment goes on to state,
"and the need to prevent deterioration"—
with no qualification of the meaning—
"of the buildings which form part of those premises".
That is not discretion.
I am sounding intemperate and I am feeling guilty for doing so. However, I believe that there is a seriously genuine intention on the part of the department, particularly on the part of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to reach an accommodation which ensures a healthy future for Church schools, giving them all their dues.
I hope that, in the light of the assurances which I have given in trying to persuade the Committee to reject the amendment, the honourable intentions of my right honourable friend, myself and the department are accepted in the spirit in which I intended to make them.
Baroness Seear: I hesitate to intervene and to prolong the debate but I should like briefly to
1456
underline the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. What the proposed Bill is offering to the Churches relies on the discretion of the Secretary of State, and not on anything written into the legislation. That is the point of substance. I know that a recent High Court decision means that what is said in the Chamber is to be taken into account as regards interpretation of the legislation. But that is not the same as having the provision written on the face of the Bill. It is absolutely right that the Churches should know where they stand legally.
I accept absolutely that the present Secretary of State and the noble Baroness have nothing but the best possible intentions towards the Churches. But they, as they will be the first to admit, will not be there for ever—and I am not talking in terms of politics. Who knows who is to follow? Buildings must be properly maintained and it must be known in advance that the money will be available to maintain them. I beg the noble Baroness to think again about this amendment. That is not a great deal to ask. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, if the Churches did not provide that education, the local authorities would have to provide it and that would cost a great deal more than the 85 per cent. I beg the Government to take away this amendment and think about it again.
Lord Northbourne: The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said most of what I intended to say. The right reverend Prelate and I have enormous confidence in the present Minister of State and the Secretary of State but the Bill gives powers to any Secretary of State at any time in the future. That is a very different kettle of fish.
I must admit that I somewhat misread Clause 259 and, on a second reading of it, I find it more acceptable.
Baroness Blatch: I was speaking to the amendments as though the Committee were asking me to accept them. I am more than ready to take away the amendment and to continue to talk about it because I believe that there is talking time left between now and Report and certainly between now and Third Reading.
I believe that there is no discretion in the part of the amendment which I read out. I can recognise discretion in the other part. However, in coming to an accommodation as regards the amendment, it is necessary to recognise the real world of having to manage finance and the intention not only of this Administration but also of future administrations to make sure that there is a full and fair future for Church schools. I should say to the noble Baroness that I am entirely easy about being pressed to use more time to think and talk about this matter. However, I find the present amendments unacceptable.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: First, I must put the record straight in two respects. I address my remarks in particular to the Minister. I thank her for her response. The Minister referred to an article in The Times over my name which had the title "Licence to rob the Churches". The Minister will know as well as I that editors put in headings. I accept no

1457
responsibility whatever for that headline which was inserted by the editorial authorities of The Times. Had I been consulted, I should have had one or two things to say.
Secondly, I wish to make it unmistakably clear—and I thought I did so in my opening speech—that I am not for one moment, or with any hesitation, questioning the intention of the present Secretary of State or the noble Baroness, the Minister. I have full confidence in what they have said and done and their policy in relation to Church schools. I recognise their policy. However, this Bill deals with the powers of future Secretaries of State. The present policies of the present Government are not in issue. I hope that we can be absolutely clear about that. But we must look to the future.
Thirdly, of course I shall wish to re-read very carefully in Hansard what the Minister said, much of which was reassuring. However, if I heard her correctly, she said that there would be no recoupment in the case of schools which were closed where the sale proceeds were being recycled into the educational system. That is not what the clause says and we are discussing what the clause says. I accept fully that that is the way in which the present Government will interpret the clause but a future Secretary of State may not interpret it in that way. I do not wish to be in difficulties with the Government but we do not seem able to get the Government to grasp that that is our anxiety. We are not making critical comments about the present Administration. We are talking about the terms and text of the Bill.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for saying that she will consult further. I recognise that my amendment is not satisfactory and I shall not press it because all that I should be able to do would be to make an attempt to contextualise the discretion. Of course it could be improved. If in discussion with the Government we can find a more acceptable formula, I think that our anxieties will be removed.
However, I cannot accept the fact that the clause as it stands hands over the situation so much to the Secretary of State. I have to return to saying what I said at the beginning; namely, that, in that sense, it is not acceptable to the Churches. I wish that I could say something else, but I have to say that. Nevertheless, on the basis of the reassurances that the Minister has given, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 295 not moved.]
Clause 257 agreed to.
Clause 258 [Power of LEA to assist governors of aided or special agreement school]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 295A:
Page 155, line 38, leave out from ("to") to ("school") in line 39 and insert ("alter, etc.").
The noble Viscount said: The above amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 258, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 259 to 262 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 295B:
1458
After Clause 262, insert the following new clause:
("Voluntary and grant-maintained schools: endowments Religious educational trusts: adoption of statutory trusts
.—(1) This section applies to endowments which are—

(a) regulated by an existing scheme under the Endowed Schools Acts 1869 to 1948 as applied by section 86(l) of the Education Act 1944 or by an order, whenever made, under section 2 of the Education Act 1973; and

(b) held under any such scheme or order on trusts which provide for capital or income or both to be applicable for or in connection with the provision at relevant schools, or relevant schools of any description (but not only at a particular school or schools), in a diocese or other geographical area of religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religion or religious denomination;

but this section does not apply to an endowment if or in so far as it constitutes a parish religious education fund.
(2) The trustees of any endowments to which this section applies may, by resolution complying with subsection (6) below, adopt the uniform statutory trusts as the trusts on which those endowments are to be held.
(3) The uniform statutory trusts are those set out in Schedule (uniform statutory trusts for educational endowments) to this Act.
(4) On the adoption by trustees of the uniform statutory trusts in respect of any endowments the scheme or order which regulates the endowments shall have effect as if the uniform statutory trusts are incorporated in the scheme or order to the exclusion of the corresponding provisions of the scheme or order.
(5) The trustees of two or more endowments which are held on the uniform statutory trusts may, by resolution complying with subsection (6) below, consolidate all or any of those endowments and, where they do so, the endowments shall he treated, for all purposes, as held for the purposes of a single charity.
(6) For a resolution to comply with this subsection—

(a) it must be passed by a simple majority of the trustees or, if the trustees are a body corporate or a company, by a simple majority of the members of the body corporate or an ordinary resolution of the company; and

(b) it must be recorded in the records of the decisions of the trustees affecting the endowments of the trust.

(7) Where trustees pass a resolution under subsection (2) above it shall be their duty to send a copy of the resolution to the Secretary of State.
(8) The uniform statutory trusts applicable to endowments to which this section applies shall not affect—

(a) the rights of any person under the third proviso to section 2 of the School Sites Act 1841, section 86(3) of the Education Act 1944 or section 1 of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987 (rights replacing certain reversionary interests in land); or

(b) the rights of any local education authority which have arisen or may arise under paragraph 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1946 (rights in relation to school sites provided by such authorities);

except in so far as any right falling within paragraph (a) above is extinguished by an order under section 2 of the Education Act 1973 made by virtue of section 5 of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987.
(9) In this section—
"company" means a company formed under the Companies Acts;
"the Companies Acts" means the Companies Act 1985, the Companies Act 1948 or any Act repealed by that Act of 1948;
"endowment" includes property not subject to any restriction on the expenditure of capital;
"existing" means in force on the day on which this section comes into force;
"parish religious education fund" includes a Sunday school fund:
"relevant school" means a voluntary school or a grant-maintained school.

1459
(10) In Schedule (uniform statutory trusts jor educational endowments) as incorporated in any scheme or order—
"the area" means the diocese or other geographical area within which the trust assets may be applied under the scheme or order, as the case may be;
"relevant school" means a relevant school at which the religious education provided for in the scheme or order, as the case may be, is or is to be provided; and
"the relevant trust assets" means the endowments in respect of which the trustees have adopted the uniform statutory trusts, including the income derived therefrom.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 295C and 323ZB. They are intended to replace the amendments of the right reverend Prelate (Amendments Nos. 297 and 298) which relate to schemes made under Section 86 of the Education Act 1944 and, more recently, orders made under Section 2 of the Education Act 1973, which replaced, but have the same effect as, schemes made under Section 86.
It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain that the schemes and orders provide for the assets representing discontinued denominational voluntary and grant-maintained schools to be vested in diocesan authorities and applied for the benefit of continuing voluntary and grant-maintained schools.
The Government's amendments are produced as a direct result of proposals which were made by representatives of the right reverend Prelate and which were shown in advance to my department. I should like, if I may, to explain first the amendments that we propose to introduce following some most helpful and very constructive advice received from the right reverend Prelate's own legal advisers in recent discussions.
Our amendments would give diocesan authorities power to standardise into a new common format the provisions relating to the endowments of closed voluntary schools and grant-maintained schools within existing schemes made under Section 86 of the 1944 Act or orders made under Section 2 of the 1973 Act. By that means, any category of voluntary or grant-maintained school within the diocese would benefit. It would of course fall to each diocese to decide the extent to which the new provisions should be adopted.
The amendments would also enable the income, but not the capital, arising under schemes or orders made in the past, or the future, to be applied by the trustees for wider purposes than at present. To explain further, orders currently made under Section 2 of the 1973 Act provide for income and capital to be applied only for the provision or maintenance of school sites and buildings. The legislation, however, is more widely drawn and provides that endowments can be used for appropriate educational purposes. The definition given to the term is,
"use for educational purposes in connection with the provision of religious education in accordance with the tenets of the denomination concerned".
The amendment we propose would allow income to be expended on the provision of advice, guidance and resource materials in connection with management or
1460
education provided at voluntary and grant-maintained schools, the inspection of schools and the cost of employing staff to provide any of those services. The amendment would also put beyond doubt the power to use the funds for those purposes.
In addition, our amendments would enable the endowments which are subject to schemes or orders which provide for the endowments to be held for the benefit of a particular diocese or area, to be amalgamated so as to constitute a single charity. The benefit of this particular provision would be that it would greatly simplify administrative arrangements for diocesan boards following more stringent accounting requirements introduced by the Charities Act 1992 for individual funds.
The right reverend Prelate's amendments, Amendments Nos. 297 and 298, if adopted, would not make clear which schemes and orders could be amalgamated. Moreover, the proposed clause omits any provision which introduces a formal mechanism through which funds may be amalgamated so that it can be established properly which funds have been combined and on what trusts the combined funds are held. It is unlikely therefore that they would result in any endowments being held on sufficiently uniform trusts to be amalgamated. They would not enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in future to make orders under Section 2 so that the endowments could be amalgamated with consolidated endowments regulated by past schemes and orders. For those reasons, I fear that Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 are not acceptable.
In conclusion, our amendments would provide more flexible arrangements for applying assets included in schemes or orders made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I know that it will be of considerable benefit to local diocesan boards of education. I believe that the proposals demonstrate clearly the importance which my right honourable friend attaches to the role of the Church in the provision of education and I hope that the right reverend Prelate will acknowledge that his anxieties have been fully taken into account.
I believe that the amendments tabled in my name achieve the objective sought by the right reverend Prelate, but do so more effectively. I hope in the light of that, that Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 will not be accepted, but I beg to move Amendment No. 295B.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: After my recent encounter with the noble Baroness, I at once say how immensely grateful we are to the Government for these amendments. The amendments of the noble Baroness to which she has just spoken achieve all that we attempted to achieve and do so rather more effectively than do my own amendments, which I shall happily tear up and abandon. I wish to place on record our deep and lasting gratitude to the Minister and her officials for the discussions that have taken place and the way in which they have borne fruit. I am advised that there may be one or two minor technical matters that have to be touched up later on. But I understand that we can come back to them at Report stage. I

1461
merely want to place on record my warmest gratitude and to assure the noble Baroness that I am at one with her on this matter.
Lord Judd: I hesitate to intervene in this great reconciliation between Church and state. It is a dramatic moment at which to be present amongst noble Lords. But there is one rather curious purpose in the schedule to the clause:
"Uniform Statutory Trusts For Educational Endowments".
I refer to Amendment No. 323ZB. Money from these trusts can be applied to:
"the provision of services for the carrying out of any inspection of any relevant school in the area required by the Education (Schools) Act 1992".
Why is that? Could the Minister enlighten us?
Baroness Blatch: There is only one thing more painful to me than feeling guilty about how I responded to the previous amendments: to be asked about a technical amendment on this particular set of amendments. But my understanding—it is a lay understanding and I shall stand corrected—is that what we want to do is to give flexibility to the Church authorities to deploy these moneys in a way that makes sense to them. We shall come later this evening (or perhaps tomorrow morning) to an amendment which deals with denominational inspections as well as Her Majesty's Inspectorate registered inspections. I think it is just a flexibility in the way the moneys are deployed.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: If I may intervene, it is certainly my understanding that what we sought was that the interest from Section 2 moneys could be available to enable us to support and carry out Section 13 inspections. It was at our particular request that the clause was included, and it very much meets our anxiety.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 295C:
After Clause 262, insert the following new clause:
Religious educational trusts: supplementary provision
.—(1) Section 2 of the Education Act 1973 (special powers as to certain trusts for religious education) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4), at the end (definition of "use for appropriate educational purposes") there shall be inserted the words "including, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, use for any purpose specified in Schedule (Uniform statutory trusts for educational endowments) to the Education Act 1993.".
(3) In subsection (3), after the word "dwelling-house" there shall be inserted the words "and may consolidate any endowments to be dealt with by the scheme.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 296:
After Clause 262, insert the following new clause:
("Maintenance of voluntary schools
.—(1) In the First Schedule to the Education Act.1946 there shall be inserted at the end of paragraph 6—
"This duty shall include the duty to meet all costs and expenses properly incurred by the trustees in taking the conveyance.
Until this duty has been discharged the local education authority shall hold the site and buildings as nominees for the persons to whom they are obliged to
1462
convey their interest and if at the direction of such persons the site or any part of it is sold the proceeds of sale shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 8 of this schedule.
The duty of a local education authority under this paragraph shall continue notwithstanding that the school closes, transfers to another site or acquires grant-maintained status before the duty is discharged."
(2) In that Schedule there shall be inserted at the end of paragraph 7—
"The sale of such other premises shall he deemed to be a disposition falling within section 32(7) (a) of the Charities Act 1992 (which relates to restrictions on dispositions of charity land)." ").
The right reverend Prelate said: This amendment was not grouped with the previous amendments because it deals with a slightly different point. It deals with technical matters not touched on by the previous amendments.
Under the 1946 Act local education authorities are obliged to provide the site where a voluntary school is transferred or enlarged. In the case of a controlled school the local education authority must provide the land and buildings for nothing, although it is entitled to a determination if any proceeds of sale are involved. In the case of an aided school, although the LEA must provide the land for nothing, the governors must pay for the buildings. The first leg of my amendment clarifies that the LEA must pay the trustees' costs. For example, a controlled school usually has no independent funds from which to meet those costs. Therefore, clarification is needed as to where the money is to come from.
The second and third legs of the amendment maintain the duty to convey the site, even if the school closes, transfers or becomes grant-maintained. Some LEAs drag their feet over such transfers, especially if they see the prospect of a school being altered in site or status in the foreseeable future. We believe that the requirement should continue whatever the eventual future of the school.
The fourth leg deals with a technical matter in relation to the Charities Act, avoiding the need for a public notice procedure where a site is to be sold and proceeds of sale are subject to a determination in favour of the LEA.
I apologise that these are highly technical matters which are virtually beyond my grasp. But I hope that the Government will indicate whether they are happy with the intention of the amendment and will be able to come back with something along these lines or whether there is more trouble in store. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I have one small point. Can the right reverend Prelate help the Committee? It has been put to me that there has not been the fullest possible consultation between him and the local authority associations on this point. I am sure that there is a misunderstanding here, and it would be of benefit if something could be said in this Chamber tonight which would reassure the local authorities.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I readily apologise to the local authority associations if we have failed to communicate adequately with them. It is my understanding that most LEAs accept responsibility for meeting the costs in such cases and it is only in a

1463
few cases that there is uncertainty. I understand that the Government accept the general view that it is right to encourage LEAs to meet those costs. At present there is no clear indication as to who should meet the costs if no one is willing to pay them. We are seeking clarification.
In so far as we may have failed to be in adequate communication with the local authority associations, I apologise and I hope that we can put the matter straight. In the meantime I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Baroness Blatch: I know that the right reverend Prelate is concerned that current legislation relating to the provision of sites by LEAs for voluntary schools does not operate effectively and the amendment is directed at the reparation of a particular problem. We believe, however, that the law as it stands is adequate and that introducing more complex and burdensome legislation to deal with a relatively small number of cases where problems may arise is inappropriate. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will accept our commitment to improving administrative controls in this area because we recognise the point that is being made. We intend to monitor the success of the procedures and reconsider the need for more legislative control if they prove ineffective.
I shall now address each section of the right reverend Prelate's proposals in turn. In response to the first part of the first clause, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to provide that LEAs meet all the trustees' costs in all cases. For example, in the case of aided schools it is the governors' duty to provide the school buildings. Therefore, it follows that they should also meet the expense of conveying any buildings on the site being conveyed to them. I can confirm that we generally advise that LEAs should meet other trustees' legal costs and the majority accept that view. We do not propose at this stage to introduce legislation to require LEAs to meet these costs, however, since we would need to consult LEA representatives—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—who are likely to raise issues of detail which would have to be addressed. We are not persuaded that this is a priority for urgent attention at this very late stage of the Bill.
On the second part of the first clause, we are not convinced that making LEAs nominees for the trustees pending completion of a conveyance would provide the answer. We doubt that this would either legitimise the expenditure of charitable funds on property not held by trustees or enable trustees to sell the property if it subsequently becomes redundant. In any event I must emphasise that the completion of the conveyance is a statutory duty incumbent upon LEAs, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State proposes to introduce new administrative controls to ensure that LEAs fulfil their statutory responsibilities in this regard. Where necessary, my right honourable friend has a power to enforce compliance by means of a direction under Section 99 of the Education Act 1944.
The third part of the first clause proposes that the LEA should be under a duty to convey interest where
1464
the school transfers, closes or becomes a grant-maintained school. In the case of a school becoming grant maintained the right reverend Prelate will be aware that this has already been discussed separately in some detail by our officials and we plan to introduce an amendment at Report stage to deal with that problem. In the case of schools closing or transferring, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary in the face of the improved administrative controls proposed.
We see no objection to the final amendment which would exempt the sale of a former school site by the trustees from the requirements contained in the Charities Act 1992 to publicise the proposals and to take account of any representations.
There is a difference between delay where the arguments and the reasons put forward by the LEAs are wholly acceptable and understandable, and where the delay is through sluggish administration. We need some mechanism to ensure that we deal as much as possible with the incidence of delay due to poor administration. However, placing a provision on the face of the Bill would put a strait-jacket unnecessarily on LEAs which have genuinely good reason for the delay.
We have no argument with the objectives. We shall do what we can to meet those concerns both by informal means and by bringing forward an amendment to the third part of the first clause.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am reassured that she will come back to the matter at a later stage and that some aspects can be dealt with by improved administrative controls. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I ought to put something right on the record. I was not referring to the third part of the first clause. It was the final amendment on which I shall bring forward an amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 not moved.]
Clause 263 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 299:
After Clause 263, insert the following new clause:
Training for unqualified teachers in CTCs or CCTAs
(". In section 218 of the Education Reform Act (school etc. regulations), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(2A) The regulations may impose requirements on persons carrying on city technology colleges or city colleges for the technology of the arts as to the training and teaching experience of persons employed as teachers at such colleges who seek to become (in relation to schools) qualified teachers; and such requirements shall have effect for the purposes of section 105 of this Act as requirements of the agreements under which the colleges are maintained.".").
The noble Baroness said: The clause provides that where a city technology college or a city college for the technology of the arts wishes to employ a teacher to follow a programme of training leading to qualified teaching status, the Secretary of State will have the same controls over the nature and duration of training as in maintained schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: It is welcome that the amendment proposed by the Minister allows the opportunity for teachers to undertake training in the city technology college employment. However, I hope that my noble friend will assure us that the training available to teachers in those schools will be of the most varied and flexible nature and will not require them to go through some of the more rigid requirements of the PGCE or the B.Ed courses which currently exist. I hope that people who have signed up to teach in the city technology colleges, who are giving the very full commitment to a teaching timetable which that requires and who have taken part in the very innovative and experimental form of school, will not be forced into the mould into which too often the existing teacher training structures force them.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may respond to that. I entirely take the point that my noble friend Lady Perry makes. I hope that she will agree that we need to draft regulations specifying the criteria which a teacher must meet to be eligible, requiring details of the proposed training, stating the length of training needed before qualified teacher status is awarded and placing a duty on the college—with which I believe my noble friend would agree—to ensure that the teacher receives the training agreed. We would, of course, consult the colleges before introducing such regulations.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: It is my understanding that the new clause allows the Secretary of State to impose regulations on CTCs as to the training and teaching experience of persons employed by them, in particular the acquisition of qualified teacher status. It would be possible for teaching staff and CTCs to have qualified teacher status without accreditation through higher education or without having successfully completed any higher education.
It is rumoured that the Government plan to bring a Bill to Parliament on the training of teachers for the next parliamentary Session. Why bring this amendment forward now if such measures could be covered in any future Bill?
Finally, I put to the Minister that it has been a key achievement of the post-war period to secure an all-graduate teaching profession and parity of esteem for all teachers at each stage of the education process. I ask the Minister whether the amendment in her name would possibly undermine that post-war achievement of the all-graduate profession.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that the "achievement", as he calls it, of the all-graduate profession of teachers when the degree in question is a teacher education degree is in some doubt, particularly as to the esteem which it carries to this sector and beyond.
Lord Addington: I wish to put a question to the noble Baroness. I take it from the amendment, as it was explained, that it is designed for a special type of teacher training which is required. Does she see it
1466
being restricted to the types of TECs and colleges mentioned and that it will not be used as a way of bringing in teachers who have received inappropriate training for teaching, for example, in schools? A few words here would probably help to put everyone's minds at rest and go some way towards dealing with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that noble Lords are seeing rather more in the amendment than there is. City technology colleges are the only class of schools that are outside the schools which could take part in more school-based teacher training. It is a question of enabling them to take part in a scheme if there were one.
I wish to make two points clear. The criteria will cover all the component parts that make up a qualified teacher. It is important—and this is why I came back to my noble friend—that while we want flexibility, we also wish to ensure quality. The second point is quality. We want the most effective teachers in the schools and quality must be paramount in all things.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 264 agreed to.
Clause 265 [Provision of goods and services by local education authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 299ZA to 300B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 265 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I wish to make a brief and, I hope, helpful suggestion to my noble friend Lady Blatch. In my opinion our interminable discussion this afternoon, to which she gave such a splendid answer, could have been avoided if Clause 265 had been dovetailed with the present law, especially with Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1975. That far-reaching Act was a fine piece of drafting. It is contained in only three clauses and only one of them contains the powers that are required. That one clause is so beautifully drafted that it is very far-reaching indeed.
They do not draft like that these days, I am very sorry to say. The Bill that we are considering could have been half the length if they knew how to draft as they did then. It was one of the very first measures introduced by the Heath Government of which I was a supporter in another place. In those days drafting was considered not good enough, so a committee on the preparation of legislation was appointed of which I had the honour to be chairman. It sat for three years and we made many suggestions; most of which have not been accepted, so drafting has become worse.
If, between now and Report stage, my noble friend would ask Parliamentary Counsel to consider re-drafting Clause 265 in a way that dovetails it with the previous law as her speech so admirably did—the first of several speeches that she made on the subject this afternoon—I am sure that in the years to come users of the Bill will be grateful to her.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend and defer absolutely to his expertise in these matters. I know of his attempts, which I have to say were in vain, to reduce the amount of legislation and improve

1467
drafting. I shall of course consider his point. I could not possibly give an answer at the Dispatch Box now, but I shall take back his comments and certainly discuss them with Parliamentary Counsel to see what can be done, without prejudice of course.
Clause 265 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 300C not moved.]
Clause 266 [Abolition of requirement to establish education committees]:
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 301:
Leave out Clause 266 and insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of requirement to establish education committees in certain circumstances
When an order or orders under section 10(1) (b) of this Act are made in respect of both kinds of education in the area of a local education authority, section 6(2) of, and Part II of the First Schedule to, the Education Act 1944 (Education Committees) shall not apply to that local education authority.").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this amendment I should point out that it is grouped with Amendments Nos. 301ZA, 328ZZZA, 328B, 328D, 329ZA, 329ZC, 329ZD, 332ZB, 332ZC, 334J, 337B, 338A, 339B to 339D and 341ZA, but I do not think that I will talk about many of those.
The Bill as drafted removes the requirement for a local authority to have a local education committee. My amendment seeks to require a local education committee to administer the LEA responsibilities for education until the 75 per cent. trigger point is reached. It seems to me that the principle is right: that while there is a significant number of schools for which an LEA is responsible, it should be required to work through a committee specifically appointed for that purpose. As drafted, the Bill would allow a local authority, even if all the schools in its area are local authority schools, to handle them through social services or some other committee. I do not think that that would be taking education seriously.
I am sometimes puzzled by which department of local government looks after what. Perhaps I may digress for a moment and tell the Committee that one of my stranger duties from time to time is to consecrate the extension of a public burial ground. When I do that on behalf of a local authority I am always interested to know who will represent the local authority on such a slightly bizarre occasion. On one such occasion recently I was intrigued to be met by the local authority's director of outdoor leisure activities.
The education of children is surely a serious responsibility. All the time that a local education authority has responsibility for a significant number of schools, it should be required to have a committee properly constituted for that purpose and not work through one which has at least one eye on something quite different.
There is also the second but subsidiary matter about Church representation on local education committees. The Government intend to move some amendments in this group, including Amendment No. 301ZA, which provide for the Churches' existing statutory or regulation representation on education committees to be met on successor bodies in a new
1468
way. I am very grateful to the Government for what they are bringing forward with these amendments, although it does not meet the principal point and the principal reason why I am moving this amendment.
I have not had an opportunity to look at the amendments in detail because we did not have sight of them until they were tabled. We have not therefore had an opportunity to discuss them with the Government. However, there seems to me to be at least one query, if not difficulty, because Amendment No. 301ZA refers to a "committee". If there is no education committee, it refers to a committee appointed "exclusively or mainly" for educational purposes. I do not think that a local authority which is using another committee will in fact be appointed under those terms. I am not sure that the terminology is right. But perhaps that is a technical detail.
I welcomed the Government's amendments in principle even though there may be need to look at the detailed wording and we would value the opportunity of studying them in detail. But I still think that the main purpose of my amendment, which is to ensure education committees until the 75 per cent. trigger point is reached, ought to be seriously considered. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I should like first to address Amendment No. 301. The decision to abolish the education committees would remove from Churches and other interested parties the statutory opportunity to participate fully in committees taking decisions on educational matters. The Government appear to have seen that as a problem and have therefore tabled amendments that would enable the Secretary of State to require representatives of the Churches to be included as members of local authority committees, joint committees and sub-committees concerned with education. It appears from the introduction given by the right reverend Prelate that that is his main concern, since clearly from the point of view of the Churches it is desirable for them to have representatives on the local authority committees that deal with education.
So far as concerns the local education authorities, I put forward the view that the amendment would be an improvement on the current wording of the Bill. For that reason I am happy to support the right reverend Prelate's amendment, Amendment No. 301.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 301ZA. The new clause would give the Secretary of State power to direct the appointment of representatives of the Churches to local authority committees or joint committees concerned with education. In general, the partnership between local education authorities and Churches has worked well. Why, therefore, is there a need for the new power to be given to the Secretary of State to direct or appoint such members additional to local authority committees dealing with education? Is it not simply another example of the Government giving themselves additional powers which they do not need?
Some LEAs are considering joint educational and social services committees. Will the Secretary of State for Education then require Church representatives to

1469
be placed on such a joint committee, which would have responsibility for a whole range of social services matters?
The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 prevents membership of social services committee and other council committees other than education unless one is an elected councillor for that area. Is it not something of a mire that we are entering? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's explanation.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that way about the amendment. I shall come to my defence of it in a moment. He referred to it as government taking additional powers that they do not need. It is not giving powers to the Government; it is offering flexibility to local government to organise its authorities in what it considers to be the most effective way.
I can say with some feeling that one of my criticisms of local authorities, on which I served for many years, was the little boxes in which everybody sat. So often the child who was an issue for education was equally an issue for social services and for the housing authority too. We all operated in little boxes and there was not a great deal of effective communication between the different departments or, indeed, between one local authority and another. Anything we can do to make sense of services provided for people, we should do.
Having said that, Amendment No. 301ZA gives my right honourable friend the Secretary of State a power to require local authorities to include representatives of persons who appoint foundation governors of voluntary schools on committees which deal exclusively or mainly with education.
Through the introduction of Amendment No. 301ZA, the Government continue to recognise the important role that voluntary schools play alongside others in the maintained sector of our statutory education service. The amendment is designed to preserve the special voting rights accorded under the present legislation to representatives of persons who appoint foundation governors of voluntary schools—in practice mainly the Church of England and Roman Catholic bodies—to education committees. As the Committee will know, the related Clause 266 provides for the abolition of the requirement for LEAs to establish education committees.
We have carefully considered various representations from, and the views of, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and others, who expressed the wish that the close and valuable participation by the Churches in the local decision-making process should be preserved.
That is the Government's wish too, and the clause has been designed to preserve the important role of the Churches and other representatives of those who appoint foundation governors to local authorities' committees dealing wholly or mainly with education matters. The Committee will know that, while the Government were still preparing the amendment, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford tabled
1470
his own amendment designed, as is the Government's, to protect the position of the Churches. But the effect of his amendment would be to delay the freedom which the Government are committed to conferring upon local authorities to meet their evolving role. It would do so by postponing the repeal of Section 6(2) and Part II of the first schedule to the Education Act 1944, thus linking the Government's measure with progress made locally in going over to grant-maintained schools.
As I explained, the Government have already provided for the Churches a far greater protection. The Government's own amendment reaffirms the rights accorded under existing legislation to representatives of persons who appoint foundation governors of voluntary schools in the context of the new arrangements. The Government have thus removed the need for the right reverend Prelate's amendment, which would delay the freedoms we seek for local authorities and complicate the Government's Bill. The Government therefore intended to ask the Committee to resist Amendment No. 301.
I am impressed by some of the arguments made in this discussion. There is no argument about the objectives. We are talking about means to ends. I should like to use the time between now and Report stage to consider the relative merits of either taking the 75 per cent. trigger point or taking our amendments. Perhaps we could discuss the issue with local authorities—because there is an impact on local authority associations—and indeed the right reverend Prelate and come to an accommodation between now and Report stage to achieve the objectives that we all stand up for.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. If I may venture an opinion, I cannot see any reason why our discussions cannot take the form of accepting both amendments, but I shall not prejudge the consultations that may take place. Clearly, there is more work to be done. On the basis of the assurance and undertaking from the Minister, I am happy to withdraw my amendment in order to make progress.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 266 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 301ZA:
After Clause 266, insert the following new clause:
Power of Secretary of State to direct appointment of members of committees
(".—(1) Subsection (2) below applies to any local authorities which in accordance with section 102(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 have appointed any committees exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their capacity as local education authorities.
(2) The Secretary of State may by directions to any local authorities to which this subsection applies require every such committee, or any such committee of a description specified in the direction, to include persons appointed, in accordance with the directions, for securing the representation on the committee of persons who appoint foundation governors for voluntary schools in the area for which the committee acts.
(3) Subsection (4) below applies to any two or more local authorities which in accordance with section 102(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 have appointed any committees

1471
exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their capacity as local education authorities.
(4) The Secretary of State may by directions to any local authorities to which this subsection applies require every such committee, or any such committee of a description specified in the direction, to include persons appointed, in accordance with the directions, for securing the representation on the committee of persons who appoint foundation governors for voluntary schools in the area for which the committee acts or in such area as may be specified in the direction.
(5) The power of the Secretary of State to give directions under subsection (2) or (4) above shall be exercisable in relation to any sub-committees which are—

(a) appointed by the authorities concerned or any such committee as is mentioned in that subsection, and

(b) so appointed exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging the authorities' functions as mentioned in that subsection or the committee's functions with respect to education,

as it is exercisable in relation to the committees themselves.").
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 301A:
After Clause 266, insert the following new clause:
Exceptional provision of education in school or elsewhere
(".—(1) Each local education authority shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable full-time or part-time education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.
(2) A school established (whether before or after the commencement of this section) and maintained by a local education authority which—

(a) is specially organised to provide education for such children, and

(b) is not a county school or special school, shall be known as a "pupil referral unit".

(3) A local education authority may secure the provision of boarding accommodation at any pupil referral unit.
(4) A local education authority may make arrangements for the provision of suitable full-time or part-time education otherwise than at school for those young persons who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.
(5) Section 9(2) of the Education Act 1944 (schools, other than nursery schools or special schools, established by LEAs to be known as county schools) shall have effect subject to subsection (2) above.
(6) Any child for whom education is provided otherwise than at school in pursuance of this section, and any young person for whom full-time education is so provided in pursuance of this section, shall be treated for the purposes of the Education Acts as a pupil.
(7) In this section "suitable education", in relation to a child or young person, means efficient education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have.
(8) Schedule (Pupil referral units) to this Act shall have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment on a previous occasion with Amendment No. 237ZA. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I know that this matter has already been debated and I apologise for not raising it earlier. The word "referral" is an unusual one. Is there any precedent for its use in this context? I feel bound to
1472
point out that the expression is one which many parents of children, who by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may have to have this kind of education, will never have heard of and indeed may not understand. I am wondering whether we may be able to find a more suitable term that the great mass of people can take on board more easily.
Baroness Blatch: I think that this word is a jolly sight better than "sin bin" which was the name originally given to these kinds of establishments. There is always difficulty in finding the right form of words. In the case of my own local authority, I was responsible for finding a form of words. We called it a secondary school support unit. That is precisely what it is, a place where intervention takes place and problems are identified early. Wherever possible young people are brought into these units in order to diagnose and address their problems so that they can be re-placed in the mainstream as soon as possible. I take my noble friend's point. The expression "pupil referral unit" is now in the Bill. I do not know whether anybody has a wish to change it. All I know is that if there is a debate about names, we will be here for a very long time.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): As amendments to Amendment No. 301A, Amendments Nos. 301B, 301C and 301D have already been debated and not moved.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has asked me to explain that neither she nor the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, can be here and to apologise to the Committee for that.
[Amendments Nos. 301 B to 301D not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 302:
After Clause 266, insert the following new clause:
("Amendments to Education (Schools) Act 1992
.—(1) The Education (Schools) Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 9(6) there shall be inserted the words "but this shall not prevent the registered inspector observing any act of religious worship conducted at the school".
(3) After section 10(3) the following new subsection shall be inserted—
"(3A) The Chief Inspector shall impose a condition on the registration of any person under this section prohibiting him from conducting an inspection of a voluntary school unless the chief inspector is satisfied that the person is an appropriate person to conduct an inspection of a voluntary school and does not hold views inimical to voluntary schools generally or to the tenets of a religious denomination in accordance with which any voluntary school is conducted.".
(4) In section 13(2) after the word "means" there shall be substituted the following—
"religious worship conducted in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination and religious education given otherwise than pursuant to a statutory requirement that it be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus".").
The right reverend Prelate said: This amendment deals with the relationship between an inspection under Section 9 of the 1992 Act by a registered inspector and an inspection under Section 13 of

1473
denominational religious education. As I see it, we want to ensure that, where worship and RE are provided in accordance with a trustee or denominational requirement, worship and religious education should be inspected by those who have an interior knowledge and understanding of what is required. Worship and religious education in an aided school should therefore be inspected under Section 13. But that is not the end of the matter. We have to recognise that some Church schools and other schools with foundation governors can move close to indoctrination or a separatist tendency. It is proper therefore that the registered inspector should at least look at worship and religious education because he has a proper responsibility for the moral and spiritual development of pupils.
In any case, if, let us say, a Church-aided school is taking its religious responsibilities seriously, the religious perceptions and understanding will permeate and colour the whole curriculum, although they should not dominate it. So the registered inspector who has to inspect the school for national curriculum purposes may also need for that reason to look at, but not to inspect, the religious education and worship in order to see the integration of the work throughout the school. For that reason it is important that the registered inspector should not be out of sympathy with the stance or status of the school. Hence that part of my amendment which seeks to require that the chief inspector should make sure that any registered inspector inspecting a voluntary school should be in general sympathy with, or at least not inimical to, the principle of voluntary schools and to the tenets of the particular religious denomination of the school providing it.
In addition to that my amendment provides for one small detail because there are some aided schools, I understand, which decide to use for their denominational education an agreed syllabus. If an aided school so chooses, its religious education should still be inspected under Section 13, not under Section 9, but the wording of the 1992 Act does not catch that. So this is what I would call a technical amendment.
Those are the reasons which lie behind Amendment No. 302. There is an amendment down to my amendment with which I have no difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will be speaking to that. I thought that it might be of help just to indicate my general acceptance of what I think he is going to say.
[Amendment No. 302ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 302, Amendment No. 302ZB:
After Clause 266, At the end of subsection (4) insert ("and the school's provision for the moral and spiritual development of pupils.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lady Cox, in whose name this amendment stands, has asked me to speak to it on her behalf. She sincerely apologises to the Committee that she cannot do so herself but she is now in Nagorno-Karabakh on, I think, her 14th humanitarian aid mission. She had not intended to be
1474
abroad for any part of the Committee stage but this has gone on rather longer than anticipated and she has not been able to avoid her engagement.
As the right reverend Prelate said, this is an amendment to his amendment, Amendment No. 302, and extends it. Under Section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 the law provides for a new system of school inspections through Ofsted, with all schools undergoing inspection every four years. Denominational schools, be they voluntary or grant maintained, are inspected in the same way, with the exception that governors can appoint their own inspector for denominational education. These are known as Section 13 inspections and continue what has been accepted practice since before 1944, which is that the state should not interfere with denominational teaching in faith-based schools. However, there are conflicts within these provisions.
One interpretation of the law appears to suggest that Ofsted inspectors can inspect every aspect of school life, including school worship and the moral and spiritual development of pupils, but cannot inspect religious education. On the other hand, Section 13 inspectors inspect religious education but do not have an explicit duty to inspect either collective worship or the spiritual and moral development of pupils. We believe that this is unsatisfactory because it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate consideration of school worship, religious education and the spiritual and moral development of pupils. This is especially true in a faith-based school. Therefore, we are very supportive of the right reverend Prelate's Amendment No. 302, subsection (4) of which ensures that a Section 13 inspector has the explicit duty to inspect school worship.
Our amendment to his amendment, Amendment No. 302ZB, extends the inspector's duties even further, to include the spiritual and moral development of pupils. I understand that these amendments have received a great deal of support from many representatives of the Christian Church. For instance, we have received a letter from Monseigneur Daniel McHugh, Director of Religious Education of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Birmingham, in which he fully supports these amendments. He also points out:
"The Government undertook at Report Stage in the House of Commons to consider bringing forward amendments to give explicit power to the Inspector appointed by the governors in Church schools to inspect the spiritual and moral development of pupils and the act of worship. The right of OFSTED inspectors to report on spiritual and moral development would remain, so providing a form of dual inspection that should meet the legitimate interests of those involved, both State and Church".
We are seeking to ensure that the report published by a Section 13 inspector is given clear official standing and influence. At present, although there is nothing to stop a Section 13 inspector inspecting school worship and the moral and spiritual development of pupils, his inspection may count for nothing officially. We are also seeking the explicit extension of the remit of the denominational inspectors to inspect and report on the moral and spiritual education of their pupils.
I confirm that we wish to see Ofsted being allowed to inspect the whole of school life and do not wish to see any restrictions placed on its brief, but if it is to be

1475
allowed this freedom in denominational schools, it seems to us very important that those schools have proper safeguards which would protect them from bias or hostile inspections. We believe that the simplest way to achieve that is by ensuring that Section 13 inspectors can produce a report of equal weight to that of Ofsted by explicitly extending to them the powers to inspect school worship and the moral and spiritual development of pupils. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's view of the matter and, if possible, her sympathetic consideration of these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: There is something about the expression
"The moral and spiritual development of pupils"
which I find a little worrying. It may be just a case of my ears pricking up in the way that a dog's ears react when he sees a rabbit go past. I would like to know what the right reverend Prelate believes that that entails and possibly what the Minister does as well. It is something which I am not happy about. I hope that the right reverend Prelate can tell me exactly what he regards that expression to mean.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Perhaps I may attempt to respond to that question. I am merely picking up the requirement of the 1992 Act where a Section 9 inspector is required to inspect and report on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school.
Lord Northbourne: I entirely support the principle which the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, have expounded but I am not quite sure that these amendments achieve that objective. As I understand it, the Churches and everyone else I have been able to speak with on this subject, seem to agree that the most workable principle is that which has come to be described as the dual inspection. Therefore the Act should provide for the Section 13 inspectors to inspect religious worship and religious education and also to be concerned about the spiritual, moral and cultural values because they are obviously experts in those areas of concern.
At the same time I believe that many of us are concerned that there might be denominational schools where the religious inspectors were prejudiced in favour of particular unacceptable attitudes of that denomination. Therefore, it is important that there should be some kind of overseeing inspection under Section 9. Provided that there is a Section 13 inspection to cover, as it were, the Section 9 inspection, so that if there is a prejudiced inspector who takes a jaundiced view, they can put the other side of the argument, that probably covers the matter. If the right reverend Prelate's amendment were acceptable—and the Section 9 inspector who was chosen was someone who was at least not known to be inimical to the attitudes of that particular denomination—that also would probably be helpful.
It is clearly not appropriate for a Section 9 inspector to interfere with the nature of the religious
1476
education. It is not appropriate for him to report that the pupils got the list of dates of the kings of Israel and Judea wrong. However, it is appropriate for him to report if he finds that the religious education is putting across ideas that are totally unacceptable in our society. That would be reported upon. Therefore, I think that I support the amendments—I certainly support the intention behind them.
Lord Judd: This is a rare moment because I am normally in such strong agreement with the right reverend Prelate that I examine my own position when I find that I have anxieties about his propositions. But I do have anxieties because it seems to me that what we are really endorsing—we may argue about the detail—is a pluralist approach to our educational system. We are saying that within that pluralist approach there should be people who are able to reassure society about what is going on in particular schools. It seems to me that if the view began to gain ground that only the friends of a particular denomination could be the inspectors of that school, that might not be reassuring to society as a whole. This is a sensitive matter and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has put his finger clearly on the point that needs to be considered. I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate could take on board the anxieties that have have been expressed and think about them with his colleagues.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has misunderstood the purpose of subsection (2) of the right reverend Prelate's amendment, which seeks to ensure precisely the reverse of what he suggested. It seeks to ensure that the registered inspector—that is, the non-denominational inspector—shall have the right of seeing in the round or in the whole all the aspects of the children's moral and social development, including the act of worship.
Lord Judd: With the greatest possible respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think that I have misunderstood. The implication of what the right reverend Prelate was saying is that we must discover, as it were, the views and convictions of the inspectors as distinct from their professional competence. That is the implication because if we ask not to have involved somebody who is unsympathetic, that suggests that the professionalism of the inspector concerned could be called into question. That is a slightly dangerous road to go down because we shall find ourselves heading towards all kinds of evaluations of what is and what is not a professionally acceptable approach. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate did not intend that; but I feel those anxieties myself and I know that they have been expressed to me. Because of his general position on these issues, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate will find it possible to go away and think a little about this and perhaps talk to some of us who have anxieties to see whether these points can be met.
Earl Russell: I, too, should like to ask the right reverend Prelate one question for clarification, and I hope that he may be able to tell me what I want to

1477
hear. I hope that that might also help to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Judd. The words that concern me are "inimical to". I am sympathetic to what I think the right reverend Prelate intended by those words. In the light of the Pepper v Hart judgment, I think that he will tell me all that I want to hear if he can say that he does not intend those words to be interpreted as if they meant no more than "different from".
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am sorry if I am confusing the Committee. It may well be that the Government will say that the contents of new subsections (3A) are better dealt with by regulation in connection with the inspectorate than by trying to put it on the face of the Bill. All that we are trying to achieve is that the registered inspection of a voluntary school with a trustee should be carried out professionally by registered inspectors but that they should not have prejudices against the principles of voluntary education or of religious education. That is all that we are anxious to avoid. Provided that is avoided, I hope that the registered inspections of any Church school will be as rigorous, independent and professional as any inspection can be.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I can be helpful. I share the general worry of the Churches that inspection should be sensitive to the particular ethos of Church schools and that governors' traditional rights in those areas will not be weakened. The Committee will be aware that in response to various anxieties expressed by the Churches and others on aspects of the inspection of denominational education, the Government gave a commitment in another place that we would consider all those matters further, in consultation with the Churches, and bring forward amendments in due course. I am sorry that we have not been able to do so yet, but we are close to finding a form of words which I hope to be able to commend to the Committee. I can give the Committee an assurance that our amendments will take account of the points that have been raised in Committee here also. I hope therefore that the right reverend Prelate, and other noble Lords will not press the amendments now.
The Committee will be aware that the Government were sympathetic to the view expressed in another place that the Section 13 inspector should be able to report also on how a school developed spiritual and moral values in pupils, and on acts of religious worship. Those matters too will be covered in the amendments we propose to bring forward.
The right reverend Prelate proposes also in his amendment that a Section 13 inspector should be able to inspect religious education in a school which is not statutorily obliged to teach in accordance with the agreed syllabus even if it chooses to do so. I am sympathetic to his wish that governors, where they wish to draw on an agreed syllabus in their teaching, should be able to do so while still being inspected by a Section 13 inspector. We shall bring forward an amendment on Report. It will also cover the position in schools which, although obliged to teach RE according to an agreed syllabus to all or some of its pupils, provide denominational worship.
1478
The final point which the amendment would introduce would be a requirement upon HMCI to register Section 9 inspectors as able to inspect voluntary schools only if they have demonstrated to his satisfaction that they do not hold values which are inimical to the ethos of voluntary schools. There are a number of points to make. First, HMCI will only register as an inspector someone who can demonstrate that he or she is "a fit and proper person" to inspect a school and is capable of conducting inspections "competently and effectively". Anyone showing bias during training on an HMI inspection will not be accepted. Professor Sutherland has said in his guidance that he will expect registered inspectors to be sensitive to the ethos of a school in inspecting it. The governors will be able to point out any bias in responding to the report of the Section 9 inspector which, will be the more evident if, as we envisage, the Section 13 inspection is carried out at or about the same time. If Professor Sutherland finds, on investigation, that it is substantiated, that person will risk being removed from the register.
The Committee will be aware that the reports of both inspections will be published, and governors will be expected to respond in their action plan to any criticisms made in either report and to have any complaints about an inspector investigated. If a report revealed serious worries about a school, the Bill provides for those to be followed up.
In selecting an inspector for a school, Ofsted will invite tenders from registered inspectors against a specification agreed in consultation with the school concerned. Ofsted will not award a tender for a voluntary school to an inspector where it is apparent that that inspector could not do a thorough job on a particular school, for whatever reason. In the light of those safeguards, I hope that the Committee will agree with me that it is not necessary to write a separate provision for registration to inspect voluntary schools into the 1992 Act.
I have commented partly on the amendment to the amendment already. We accept that the Section 13 inspector should be able to comment on pupils' spiritual and moral development, and I can give an assurance that the point will be covered in our amendments. I hope noble Lords will not press the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate and, in particular, to the Minister. I believe that we have all the undertakings that we require and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I too am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what she has said. I want to underline to Members of the Committee opposite that I thought that I made it absolutely clear that we were not suggesting that inspectors of religious denominational schools should be favoured in any way. We saw the two things running in parallel so that the Section 9 inspectors could do their bit and the Section 13 inspectors could do their bit. I believe that my noble friend the Minister has taken the point and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Cox will look

1479
forward with great interest to the wording which is eventually produced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 302ZB, as an amendment to Amendment No. 302, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 302, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 302A not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 302B:
After Clause 266, insert the following new clause:
("Political and sex education
.—(1) The Education (Schools) Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 9(4) there shall be inserted—
"(e) the extent to which the school complies with sections 44 to 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 or, in the case of a grant-maintained school, with section 46A of that Act.".").
The noble Lord said: Section 44 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 prohibits in county schools and special schools the pursuit or promotion of partisan political views. Section 45 requires those schools to provide a balanced treatment in dealing with political issues. Section 46 provides that sex education in such schools is:
"given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
Section 46A makes those sections also applicable to grant-maintained schools.
So far, so good. However, there is substantial anecdotal evidence for the fact that some schools have not been following the regulations. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that schools actually carry out their obligations in this respect by ensuring quite specifically that these issues are to be inspected and reported upon by the inspectors. Whatever any of us may believe individually about the rights or wrongs of the different ways of providing sex education or political education, what must be wrong is allowing to continue a practice which rides roughshod over the sensibilities of a substantial number of parents—and it is also a concern to most—and which flies in the face of the intentions of Parliament as expressed in the 1986 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I see that the amendment stands also in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox. In her absence I wish to support it because it seems to me to be entirely sensible. In my closing comments in moving Amendment No. 302ZB I indicated that I thought it possible that Ofsted inspectors might produce hostile inspections on the religious content of the education given by denominational schools. I did so because I understand that the majority of the new Ofsted inspectors are former HMI inspectors. One must say that some former HMI inspectors did not earn an exactly glowing reputation for their promotion of Christian and other religious values. In that respect I was encouraged by what my noble friend the Minister had to say about the way in which they will be examined in that area in future.
Having been somewhat critical of some Ofsted inspectors, I hope that my support of the amendment
1480
allows me to redress the balance. I very much hope that Ofsted inspectors will be given the duty to report on the political balance offered by the schools which they inspect and as to whether sexual matters are discussed with due regard to moral considerations. I very much hope that they will carry out that duty in the spirit intended and required by the Education (Schools) Act 1992.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I find it difficult to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in the amendment which he has proposed. However, I put forward two areas of anxiety. First, is there not a danger of overload on the requirements of the inspection process? Do we want inspectors to be distracted from their main task of inspection; that is, ensuring that the standards of education in schools are as they should be?
Nevertheless, all that the amendment makes explicit on the face of the Bill is that which is already required. On those grounds I find the amendment difficult to oppose.
Baroness Blatch: The point which has just been made is extremely important. We have had a good debate in this Chamber which made clear that education should not only be about academic teaching and learning. We should be concerned in the round with the wholesomeness of young people and, therefore, the importance of underpinning education with a moral and spiritual dimension. I believe that the Committee took that seriously and we should expect the inspectorate to take seriously all aspects of inspection. There is no hierarchy with regard to one issue over another.
Any registered inspector carrying out a Section 9 inspection is required to comment, among other things, on the way a school promotes the spiritual and moral development of pupils across the curriculum. The registered inspector will state his findings in a published report, and the governors are required to publish an action plan in response, setting out the action they propose to take to remedy any deficiencies identified. In addition, in any school which offers denominational religious education, the governors are under a duty to arrange for the inspection of that denominational provision under Section 13 of the Act. The Section 13 inspector, who is solely appointed by the governors, will also be able to report on the way in which a school encourages the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of its pupils. This report, and the governors' response to it, will also be published and made widely available so that parents and others can see that the school is fulfilling its role in accordance with its trust deed or statement annexed to statutory proposals.
This public, open reporting will provide a sound basis for parents and others to judge the spiritual and moral ethos of a school. The governing body is also required by the Schools Act 1992 to include an update on the progress it has made in implementing its action-plan in its annual report to parents. This will ensure that a school's performance is kept constantly

1481
under review. The annual parents' meeting itself will give parents an opportunity to question governors about their decisions.
The independence of the new government department, Ofsted, was a crucial factor behind the 1992 Act. Its independence secures the impartiality and high professional standards of school reports, and I consider it important that we leave Professor Sutherland, HMCI, to determine what inspections should cover and how they should be reported. I would not want to seek to limit the evidence looked at by registered inspectors by over-prescriptive legislation.
My right honourable friend is also consulting on a draft revised circular on sex education in schools, which, among other things, recognises the importance of providing sex education within a moral framework which encourages family values. The Government are clear therefore 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 loving relationships and mutual respect.
In addition, the National Curriculum Council has just published guidance on the moral and spiritual dimension of the curriculum. Furthermore, Circular 7/92 noted our commitment to requiring from 1993–94 that all maintained schools should include in their prospectuses a statement about the way in which they seek to secure the requirements of the Education Reform Act in this respect. There are, thus, several measures which ensure that the spiritual values of pupils are promoted and are safeguarded in addition to the requirement already on schools to comply with the Education (No. 2) Act in relation to political activity and sex education.
It is the transparency of the system now which will be the greatest possible safeguard against anxieties held by Members of the Committee. I hope that the Committee will agree with me that there is no need to write such compliance into the 1992 Act as an additional duty of registered inspectors. It is covered adequately already.
Lord Northbourne: Will the Minister confirm that she is saying that part of the duty of the registered inspectors will be to inspect compliance with that and other legal obligations?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, I am.
Lord Northbourne: In those circumstances, I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 267 and 268 agreed to.
Clause 269 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
[Amendment No. 303 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 303A and 303B:
Page 159, line 35, after ("54") insert ("(Making and varying joint schemes)").
Page 159, line 35, leave out ("98").
The noble Baroness said: These amendments have been spoken to with Amendment No. 166A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 303C and 304 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 304ZA:
Page 159, line 36, at beginning insert ("paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary to correct an omission from the list of orders which do not have to be made by statutory instrument. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I should like to ask the Minister to speak to the amendment. I believe that we should hesitate to approve it without hearing exactly what is the case for it.
Lord Henley: I was trying to speed up the business of the Committee but, no doubt, I can give my noble kinsman an explanation of the omission that we are endeavouring to correct.
Under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may by order make certain provisions in relation to a school's transition to grant-maintained status. Such an order may, for example, give the new governing body of a school acquiring grant-maintained status the power to conduct its own admissions arrangements in the period before the proposals are implemented. I can assure the Committee that the matters dealt with by the orders are local administrative matters. It would be completely inappropriate for Parliament's time to be taken up in making them by statutory instrument. That burden on our time would be considerable, given the increasing numbers of grant-maintained schools.
With that explanation, I hope that my noble kinsman will be satisfied and accept that the amendment is necessary purely to correct an omission in the list of orders.
Earl Russell: I thank my noble kinsman for that explanation. I have been having a little difficulty reconciling it with the words of the clause in question. For example, paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 4 states:
"Such an order may in particular—
(a) exclude or modify any powers of the local education authority or of the existing governing body".
That is a fairly sweeping power. My noble kinsman will say that that is governed by subsection (2), but, as it deals with transition, it may include a great deal which I think we in this Chamber might want to look at again. I am not at all sure how much could be done if the amendment were carried. I am not sure that I am happy about it as it stands. Can we hear a little more about restriction on what can actually be done under the amendment? That is the point upon which we need to be satisfied if we are to let the amendment pass.
Lord Henley: I thought that I had made it clear that the amendment is fairly technical. However, perhaps I may speak to the clause itself. It deals purely with the procedure for making certain regulations and orders under Bills. It sets out which provisions are exercised by statutory instruments and which are exempt. Those statutory instruments are not subject to annulment in

1483
pursuance of a resolution by either place. Debate on the status of orders and the relevant procedures is likely, obviously, to arise in this context.
Such matters have been before the Select Committee under my noble friend Lord Rippon. That committee did not comment adversely on the exceptions that we list in subsection (2) of the clause. All we are doing is simply adding paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to the list.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing the Committee's attention to the provision. Perhaps I can take a different perspective from that which I usually take. Under paragraph 5(3) (b) of the schedule, there is a requirement for a,
"governing body to be consulted before the local education authority"
carries out certain matters. There may well be an LEA which might wish to do something where there should be consultation. If there is a possibility that that could be disapplied, which seems to be the position by the insertion of the exception under the amendment, then that might give carte blanche to LEAs in a way which might be inappropriate.
Lord Henley: I think that both Members of the Committee who have just spoken are making something of a mountain out of a molehill. I said that the amendment's purpose was to correct an omission. It is merely a re-enactment of what exists in the 1988 Act, where a similar order-making power is given to the Secretary of State under Schedule 5. Those orders are not required to be made by statutory instrument and, as will be the case with our Bill's provisions, can only be made on a school-by-school basis. That is the crucial point.
We are proposing the most sensible and practical way of dealing with requests from individual schools for necessary powers during the transitional period and consulting, as under present arrangements, the governing body and other relevant bodies wherever appropriate. Therefore, I hope that both my noble kinsman and the noble Baroness will be able to accept the amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry. We do not want to make what the noble Lord calls a mountain out of a molehill. But he has not really commented on this phrase which is really rather alarming and which states that the Secretary of State may:
"modify any powers of the local education authority or of the existing governing body".
This is very sweeping. The fact that it existed in a previous Act does not make it any better. It may just have been overlooked in the previous Act. It is those lines which concern us. The powers are very sweeping.
Lord Henley: I am possibly being rather slow, but, as I read Clause 269, it states that:
"Any power of the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations under this Act (other than under any of the excepted provisions) shall be exercised by statutory instrument".
I really do not see what the—now three—noble Lords on the Liberal Benches are objecting to.
Earl Russell: My noble kinsman mentioned the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I agree that it made no comment on this point in the original Bill. I am not aware that this government amendment has been before the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. If my noble kinsman can tell me that is has, that would reassure me quite considerably. But, failing that, I think that, in order that we should not make a mountain out of a molehill, it would be helpful if we could have a little more time to work out what this amendment really means. So, if my noble kinsman could withdraw it and bring it back at Report stage, I think that would be extremely helpful to us.
Lord Henley: I have no intention whatsoever of withdrawing the amendment. As I said, this is something that already exists in the 1988 Act. Section 269—admittedly without this particular power—has been before the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I see nothing wrong with adding something that was in the 1988 Act. It was merely omitted in error and we are putting it back into this Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 269 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
[Amendment No. 304A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 304B:
Page 159, line 41, leave out ("98").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 269, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 270 and 271 agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 304C:
After Clause 271, insert the following new clause:
("Application of Data Protection Act 1984 to local education authorities
A registration as a data user by a local education authority under the Data Protection Act 1984 shall encompass all schools maintained by that authority; and for the purposes of that Act any member of staff, governor or pupil in the service of any school shall be treated as a servant of the school to which his responsibilities or duties relate.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments deal with aspects of the Data Protection Act. Until 1991 the view had been taken that an LEA registration with the Data Protection Registrar under the terms of the Data Protection Act covered individual maintained schools. Since then, however, guidance has been issued indicating that individual schools' governing bodies and head teachers, as well as LEAs, should register if in connection with their statutory duties they keep information containing personal data as defined in the Act that can be automatically processed. In other words, three registrations are now needed at a cost of £75 each every three years, where one was previously sufficient.
Individual registration in this way is bureaucratic and costly. The Association of County Councils estimates that the national cost will be £4 million every three years, plus the ongoing costs of governor and school staff time in advice, etc.
We believe that this is largely an unnecessary system, as many LEAs use computer-based networked

1485
information systems and register their data with the Data Protection Registrar. Information in the system feeds down through area education officers into schools, with personal data and amendments flowing in both directions within the computer system. Personal data are entered only once on to the system by an authorised user. As the personal data are identical throughout the system, why should it be necessary to register the data users three times?
We believe that the Education Bill provides a good opportunity to tackle this issue. The new clause would provide for a single registration by the LEA to cover maintained schools in its area.
This is in a sense an extremely small issue in comparison with the magnitude of the issues we have debated throughout the Bill, but the Bill provides an opportunity to clear up an administrative absurdity. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: As the deregulation Minister in the Department of Social Security, just as my noble friend is the deregulation Minister in the Department for Education, we both appreciate the burden that the present requirement to register places on schools. We therefore have some sympathy with the arguments in favour of simplification of the present arrangements. The Data Protection Registrar has also acknowledged that there is a case for some simplification of the registration requirements. However, my colleagues in the Home Office would wish to see the outcome of deliberation on a draft EC directive presently under consideration which proposes, among other things, to bring manual records within the scope of the data protection legislation before they consider the possibility of any fresh legislation.
Although I cannot at this time provide any guarantees, I shall certainly put forward the arguments in favour of simplification of registration requirements for schools and note very sympathetically what the noble Lord has said. Having repeated that, I cannot give any guarantees. I hope that in the meantime the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am very grateful for the tone of the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 304D not moved.]
Clause 272 [Meaning of "school" in the Education Acts]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved amendment No. 305:
Page 160, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) In the definition of "primary school" in section 114(1) of the Education Act 1944 ("primary school" means, subject to regulations under section 1 of the Education Act 1964, a school for providing primary education, whether or not it also provides further education) before "further education" there is inserted "part-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils or".").
The noble Lord said: This really is a technical amendment. It amends the definition of "primary school" in the Education Act 1944 and is consequential on the amendment made by Clause 272 to Section 14(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The amendment to Section 14(5) makes it
1486
clear that the education provided at primary school may include part-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: Do I detect from the noble Lord's phraseology that the previous amendment was a little more than merely a technical amendment?
Lord Henley: No, the noble Baroness did not detect that. I detected that the noble Baroness and her colleagues suspected that the previous amendment was a little more than a purely technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 272, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 273 [General interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 305A not moved.]
Clause 273 agreed to.
Clauses 274 to 276 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Distribution of functions where order made under section 10]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 306:
Page 167, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) In particular, to the extent that this Schedule governs the payments to be made to any local education authority or the governing body of any grant-maintained school in respect of charges by that authority or body for the provision of board and lodging (at a boarding school or otherwise than at school), the proviso to section 52(1) of the Education Act 1944 and section 111(2) to (6) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (charges) shall not apply; and in this Schedule section 52(1) of the Education Act 1944 and section 111(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988 are referred to as the "existing charging provisions".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I apologise for holding up the proceedings, but perhaps I may say this. Since we debated the issue many people have considered the provisions and find them tortuous. We very much appreciated the letter which the Minister sent to some of us at the time the provisions were being introduced. However, it did not clarify the position any more than the debate did. Perhaps we can have some assurance from the Minister that he and his department will seek to clarify this part of the Bill for all concerned.
Lord Henley: I note what the noble Lord says. I am sure that it will not be my department which will undertake that, but I am sure my noble friend's department will take note of his anxieties.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 307 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 308:
Page 167, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 309:
Page 167, line 34, at end insert:("and
( ) that where nursery places are provided they are provided within the plans of the local education authority for nursery education in the area.").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 315. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear precisely what is intended by this part of the schedule.
I take it that according to the intentions of the Bill grant-maintained schools are to provide primary and secondary education only. The funding authority is not involved in the general funding of nursery places. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that when a grant-maintained primary school provides, or applies to provide in future, nursery places in a nursery or pre-school class those places will fall within the overall plans for nursery provision which, as I understand it, the LEA will continue to be in a position to make for its area.
The purpose of Amendment No. 315 is the same. The amendments would mean that, as is the case with special educational needs provision, the planning and strategy of provision for nursery education would remain the responsibility of the LEA. It should be the duty of the local education authority to provide nursery education where it thinks fit, including in the pre-school classes in grant-maintained schools if those schools offer such provision.
The funding authority has no obligation to make any such strategic plans for nursery provision, nor any obligation to fund nursery education itself. Whatever plans the local education authority has in that area should be overriding.
Planning is obviously related to funding. It might be rational to leave all the funding to that part of the SSA which is devoted to nursery education. It is the purpose of the two amendments to clarify the Government's thinking on the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I strongly support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. We are deeply concerned that there is a danger that without the LEA retaining control the nursery schools receiving financial support might not necessarily meet the greatest social need in the area. That is what the LEA is best equipped to decide and determine. We believe that the amendments will help to preserve that principle. We welcome them.
Baroness Seear: We strongly support the amendment to which I, too, have put my name. We have spoken on a number of occasions of the great importance we attach to the extension and development of nursery education. However, the need for an overall plan within an area is even stronger in relation to nursery education than to other aspects of education if only because of the physical availability of nursery places within a reasonable geographical area. When one is dealing with very small children one does not wish to take them half way across a town to a place at which they will stay for only a few hours. There should be local authority oversight and a local authority plan to ensure that the all too scarce resources of nursery education are available in the most convenient places and can be used to the full.
Lord Henley: If I may, I shall deal first with the two amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness. I shall then speak briefly to the amendment in the name of my noble friend.
I note the concern of the noble Baroness and the two noble Lords who have spoken to ensure that the
1488
powers of the LEA to plan the scale and location of nursery provision are not diminished by the role conferred upon the funding authority. We recognise these concerns but we believe that the safeguards that they seek are already present. I hope that I can give suitable assurances to the noble Baroness. The reason that the funding authority has powers in relation to nursery education is to ensure that where local reorganisation takes place for which it must publish proposals, it is not constrained in the exercise of that duty. Clause 92(4) of the Bill requires the funding authority, before publishing proposals for a significant change of character of a school, to consult such persons as appear to it to be appropriate. The funding authority would certainly be expected to include the LEA in any such consultation for this purpose.
The LEA has the right to object to such proposals on the grounds that they run counter to the LEA's own policy for the overall distribution of nursery provision. My right honourable friend will weigh all the arguments for and against such proposals, with due regard to the wider planning function that the LEA fulfils in regard to these young children and the need to avoid placing new burdens upon them.
If I may, I shall just briefly refer at this point to my own Amendment No. 314. This is purely a technical amendment, but important nonetheless, as it makes it quite clear that the funding authority is not under any duty to provide education for children aged under five years.
We recognise the wider role of LEAs in relation to the under-fives. Nursery schools will remain a responsibility of the LEA, which will continue to be able to establish new nursery schools. The LEA will also retain overall responsibility for securing that children under five who have special educational needs are identified and appropriately placed. The LEAs will retain other functions in relation to these young children. For example, they undertake, with local authorities, periodic reviews of day care provision for young children as required by Section 19 of the Children Act. The amount of educational provision for the under-fives in their area is relevant to that review and hence the Bill enables LEAs to collect such information from self-governing schools or the funding authority as necessary. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may ask him one question. We know that the funding authority has no obligation to provide for children under five, but where there is a nursery class in a grant-maintained primary school, is it the case that the funding authority is responsible for funding the children in that class? That is one of the areas about which I have not been clear.
Lord Henley: My understanding is that if the grant-maintained school wished to do that, it would be the case. But may I just say that that is my understanding at the moment. If I am wrong, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful for that answer too. I have no doubt that there will be further opportunities to discuss nursery provision at a later stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 310 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 311:
Page 167, line 36, leave out ("8") and insert ("8(1)").
The noble Lord said: We moved a series of amendments what seems to be some time ago, last month, concerning the provision of boarding accommodation and the purchase of independent school places. In brief, the effect of those amendments was to ensure that the existing flexibility to make such provision continues when, at stage 3, the funding agency for schools assumes responsibility in an area for securing sufficient school places.
The most substantial amendments were to Schedule
2. A number of consequential amendments were required to that schedule and other provisions of the Bill. This is purely another consequential amendment.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 312 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 313:
Page 168, line 9, leave out paragraph 5 and insert:
("5.—(l) The duty under section 8(1) of the Education Act 1944 shall be discharged by the funding authority instead of the local education authority.
(2) In discharging that duty the funding authority shall, in particular, have regard to the matters referred to in section 8(2) (c) of that Act (provision for pupils who have special educational needs).
(3) The funding authority may provide board and lodging otherwise than at school for pupils at maintained or grant-maintained schools; and, where the authority do so, the parents of the pupils concerned shall, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, pay charges to the authority not exceeding the cost to the authority of the provision.
(4) Where the governing body of a grant-maintained school provide hoard and lodging at the school for pupils there, the parents of the pupils concerned shall, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, pay charges to the governing body not exceeding the cost to the governing body of the provision.
5A.—(1) The local education authority may continue to secure the provision of relevant education falling within section 8(1) of that Act and (subject to paragraph 6 below) to secure the provision of schools for that purpose.
(2) In exercising those powers the local education authority shall, in particular, have regard to the matters referred to in section 8(2) of that Act (which include separation of primary and secondary education, and boarding accommodation for those for whom boarding is desirable).
(3) Where the local education authority—

(a) provide board and lodging at a maintained school for pupils there, or

(b) provide board and lodging otherwise than at school for pupils at maintained or grant-maintained schools,

the parents of the pupils concerned shall, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, pay charges to the authority not exceeding the cost to the authority of the provision.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 314:
Page 168, line 14, at end insert:
(". The funding authority shall not by virtue of section 8(1) (a) of that Act be under any duty in respect of junior pupils who have not attained the age of five years.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 315 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 316 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 317.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 316:
Page 168, line 26, leave out ("to special schools") and insert:
("( ) to special schools,
( ) to nursery schools,
( ) where relevant education is only primary education, if the school in question is or will be a secondary school which also provides primary education, or
( ) where relevant education is only secondary education, if the school in question is or will be a primary school which also provides secondary education.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No 318:
Page 168, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) This paragraph does not apply—
( ) where relevant education is only primary education, if the school in question is or will be a secondary school which also provides primary education, or
( ) where relevant education is only secondary education, if the school in question is or will be a primary school which also provides secondary education.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 319:
Page 168, line 37, at beginning insert:
("Charges for board and lodging or independent education
7A.—(1) Sub-paragraph (3) below applies where—

(a) any pupil of compulsory school age ordinarily resident in the area is being provided with board and lodging (at a boarding school or otherwise than at school) or with education at a school which is not a maintained or grant-maintained school,

(b) the funding authority are of the opinion that it is not practicable for the pupil to obtain admission to any maintained or grant-maintained school which is a reasonable distance from his home and provides efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have, and

(c) the authority are of the opinion that it is appropriate for the pupil to be provided with the particular board and lodging or, as the case may be, education.

(2) Sub-paragraph (3) below also applies where—

(a) any pupil ordinarily resident in the area is being provided with board and lodging (at a boarding school or otherwise than at school) or with education at a school which is not a maintained or grant-maintained school, and

(b) the funding authority are of the opinion that—

(i) the conditions in sub-paragraph (1) above have been, but are no longer, met by reason only of the pupil having ceased to be of compulsory school age or sub-paragraph (1) (b) above having ceased to apply, and

1491

(ii) it would not be desirable for the pupil to cease to be provided with the particular board and lodging or, as the case may be, education.

(3) Where this sub-paragraph applies—

(a) if board and lodging is provided by the funding authority, no charge shall be payable to the authority under this Schedule in respect of the board and lodging,

(b) if board and lodging is provided at a maintained or grant-maintained school or by a local education authority, the funding authority shall pay the whole of the charges payable to any local education authority or governing body under this Schedule or the existing charging provisions in respect of the board and lodging, and

(c) in any other case the funding authority shall pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the board and lodging or, as the case may be, the education.

(5) This paragraph does not apply in the case of a pupil for whom a statement is maintained under section 159 of this Act.
7B.—(1) This paragraph applies where any pupil ordinarily resident in the area is being provided with board and lodging (at a boarding school or otherwise than at school) or with education at a school which is not a maintained or grant-maintained school.
(2) If board and lodging is provided at a school maintained by the responsible education authority and the authority are of the opinion that it is desirable for the pupil to be provided with board and lodging, or board and lodging otherwise than at school is provided by the authority, (but in any of those cases paragraph 7A(3) above does not apply) then—

(a) the authority may remit the whole or any part of the charges payable to them under this Schedule in respect of the board and lodging, and

(b) if they are of the opinion that, in order to avoid financial hardship to the pupil's parent, the parent should not pay the whole or any part of those charges, the authority shall remit the whole or, as the case may be, that part of those charges.

(3) If board and lodging otherwise than at school is provided by the funding authority or board and lodging is provided at a grant-maintained school or a school maintained by another local education authority (but in any of those cases paragraph 7A(3) above does not apply)—

(a) the responsible education authority may pay the charges payable to the funding authority, or any local education authority or governing body, under this Schedule or the existing charging provisions in respect of the board and lodging, and

(b) if they are of the opinion that it is desirable for the pupil to be provided with board and lodging, they shall pay so much (if any) of those charges as in their opinion is required to be paid by them in order to avoid financial hardship to the parent.

(4) In any other case in which this paragraph applies (but paragraph 7A(3) above does not apply)—

(a) the local education authority may pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the board and lodging or, as the case may be, the education, and

(b) if they are of the opinion that it is desirable for the pupil to be provided with board and lodging and appropriate for him to be provided with the particular board and lodging, they shall pay so much (if any) of the fees payable in respect of board and lodging as in their opinion is required to be paid by them in order to avoid financial hardship to the parent, and

(c) if they are of the opinion that it is desirable for the pupil to be provided with education otherwise than in a maintained or grant-maintained school and appropriate for him to be provided with the particular education, they shall pay so much (if any) of the fees payable in respect of the education as in their opinion is required to be paid by them in order to avoid financial hardship to the parent.

(5) In this paragraph the "responsible education authority", in relation to a pupil ordinarily resident in any area, means the local education authority for the area.
1492
(6) This paragraph does not apply in the case of a pupil for whom a statement is maintained under section 159 of this Act.
7C.—(l) Where a pupil in the area for whom a statement is maintained under section 159 of this Act is attending a maintained or grant-maintained school, this paragraph applies if—

(a) he is provided with board and lodging at the school and either the school is named in the statement or the responsible education authority are satisfied that the necessary special educational provision cannot be provided for him except at a boarding school, or

(b) he is provided with board and lodging otherwise than at school and the responsible education authority are satisfied that the necessary special educational provision cannot be provided for him at the school unless board and lodging are also provided.

(2) Where the board and lodging is provided by the responsible education authority, no charge shall be payable to the authority under this Schedule in respect of the board and lodging.
(3) Where the board and lodging is provided by the funding authority or another local education authority or at a grant-maintained school or a school maintained by another local education authority, the responsible education authority shall pay the charges payable to the funding authority or any local education authority or governing body under this Schedule or the existing charging provisions in respect of the board and lodging.
(4) In any other case to which this paragraph applies, the responsible education authority shall pay to the person providing the board and lodging the whole of the fees in respect of the board and lodging.
(5) In this paragraph the "responsible education authority", in relation to a pupil, means the local education authority responsible for the pupil for the purposes of Part III of this Act.
General
7D.—(1) The following provisions shall not apply—

(a) sections 50 and 52 of the Education Act 1944 (power of LEA to provide board and lodging otherwise than at school and recovery of charges from parents),

(b) section 6(2) (a) (ii) of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 (payment by LEA of fees and boarding charges where pupil attends non-maintained school because of shortage of places in maintained and grant-maintained schools), and

(c) section III of the Education Reform Act 1988 (charges and remission of charges for board and lodging in maintained and grant-maintained schools).

(2) Any charges payable to the local education authority, the funding authority or the governing body of a grant-maintained school under this Schedule may be recovered summarily as a civil debt.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: Again, I apologise for slightly holding up proceedings, but perhaps the Minister will reassure the Committee on the Government's thinking on this rather important point. Why will the authority have the responsibility rather than the local education authority, because the local education authority has wider responsibilities, including social responsibilities, and is presumably in a better position to make a judgment?
Lord Henley: It is some time since we debated Amendment No. 71. I believe that it was on 20th April. I would rather not respond, as it were, off the cuff to the noble Lord's point. No doubt my noble friend will be prepared to write to him or perhaps he

1493
would be prepared to look at what my noble friend said when she moved Amendment No. 71 on 20th April.
Lord Judd: The concern remains. I understand the Minister's predicament. He is always particularly helpful in his responses and therefore I think we would all be satisfied if he could write to me, endeavouring to reassure me on the point that I have raised.
Lord Henley: I am sure that any letter from me will reassure the noble Lord and I shall certainly make sure that the letter comes from me and not from my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 320 and 320A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 321:
Page 168, line 43, at end insert:
(". In relation to any power under Chapter IV of Part II of this Act to publish proposals for the establishment of a grant-maintained school—

(a) references to establishing a school for the purpose of providing primary education include establishing a primary school which. also provides secondary education, and

(b) references to establishing a school for the purpose of providing secondary education include establishing a secondary school which also provides primary education.

.—(1) Where relevant education is only primary education

(a) no proposals may be published under section 92 of this Act in respect of any grant-maintained school which is a secondary school or if the implementation of the proposals would cause the school to become a secondary school,

(b) no proposals may be published under section 101 of this Act in respect of any grant-maintained secondary school, and

(c) no direction may be given under section 144(2) of this Act to the governing body of any grant-maintained secondary school.

(2) Where relevant education is only secondary education

(a) no proposals may be published under section 92 of this Act in respect of any grant-maintained school which is a primary school or if the implementation of the proposals would cause the school to become a primary school,

(b) no proposals may be published under section 101 of this Act in respect of any grant-maintained primary school,

(c) no direction may be given under section 144(2) of this Act to the governing body of any grant-maintained primary school.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 322:
Page 168, line 45, at end insert:
("Boarding schools
The powers of the funding authority to publish proposals under sections 45 and 92 of this Act or to give notice of proposals under section 173 of this Act may, in particular, be so exercised as to secure the provision of boarding accommodation at boarding schools.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 323:
Page 169, leave out line I and insert:
("Nursery education
.—(1) No person may—

(a) publish proposals under section 45 or 46 of this Act for the establishment of any nursery school, or

(b) publish proposals under section 91 or 92 of this Act, or give notice of proposals under section 173(3) or (4) of this Act, for a school to become a nursery school.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, proposals under sections 45, 46, 91, 92 or 173(3) or (4) of this Act may, in particular, be made for the purpose of securing the provision of education for junior pupils who have not attained the age of five years.
Other modifications of Part II").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 323ZA:
Before Schedule 16, insert the following new schedule:
("PUPIL REFERRAL UNITS
General adaptations of enactments
1. References in any enactment to the proprietor or governing body of a school shall be read, in relation to a pupil referral unit, as references to the local education authority.
2. References in any enactment to the head teacher of a school shall be read, in relation to a pupil referral unit, as references to the teacher in charge of the unit (whether known as the head teacher or not).
Modifications of enactments by regulations
3. Regulations may provide for any enactments relating to schools maintained by local education authorities (or schools including such schools)—

(a) to apply in relation to pupil referral units,

(b) to apply in relation to such units with such modifications as may be prescribed, or

(c) not to apply in relation to such units.

Registration
4.—(I) A person who is registered as a pupil at a school other than a pupil referral unit shall not, by reason only of being registered also as a pupil at such a unit, cease for the purposes of the Education Acts to be treated as a registered pupil at that school.
(2) In this Schedule, "registered" means shown in the register kept under section 80 of the Education Act 1944.
Application of Local Government Act 1986
5. A pupil referral unit is a maintained school for the purposes of section 2A(1) (b) of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition on promoting homosexuality).
Curriculum
6.—(1) Section 17 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (duty of LEA to state policy) applies in relation to pupil referral units as it applies in relation to county schools.
(2) In relation to every pupil referral unit, the Secretary of State, the local education authority and the teacher in charge shall exercise their functions with a view to securing that the curriculum for the unit satisfies the requirements of section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (balanced and broadly based curriculum) and of any other enactment which applies to the curriculum for pupil referral units.
(3) Each local education authority shall, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make arrangements for the consideration and disposal of any complaint to the effect that the authority, or the teacher in charge of any pupil referral unit

(a) have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred, or the performance of any duty imposed, on them by or under any enactment referred to in sub-paragraph (2) above, or

1495

(b) have failed to discharge any such duty.

(4) The Secretary of State shall not entertain under section 68 or 99 of the Education Act 1944 any complaint in respect of any local education authority, being a complaint—

(a) for which arrangements are required to be made under sub-paragraph (3) above, or

(b) that a local education authority have failed to exercise their powers to secure compliance by the teacher in charge of a pupil referral unit with any such duty as is referred to in that sub-paragraph,

unless a complaint in respect of the local education authority or, as the case may be, the teacher in charge of the unit has been made in respect of the same matter and disposed of in accordance with arrangements under that sub-paragraph.
Discipline
7. The teacher in charge of a pupil referral unit may on disciplinary grounds exclude a pupil from the unit, but not for an indefinite period.
Political indoctrination, political issues and sex education
8. Sections 44 to 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (political indoctrination, treatment of political issues and sex education) apply in relation to pupil referral units as they apply in relation to county schools.
Charges
9.—(1) Sections 106 to 11l and 118 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (charges) apply in relation to pupil referral units as if the references to governing bodies were omitted.
(2) Section 111(2) (b) of that Act shall have effect in relation to a pupil provided with board and lodging at a unit as if after "that" there were inserted "for the time being".
Application of Environmental Protection Act 1990
10. A pupil referral unit is an educational institution for the purposes of Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter).
Information
11. Each local education authority shall make available, on such occasions, and in such form and manner, as may be prescribed, to registered parents of registered pupils at any pupil referral unit such information about the unit as may be prescribed.
Disapplication of Schedule 2
12. Schedule 2 to this Act does not apply in relation to pupil referral units or the provision for pupils at such units of board and lodging (whether at units or elsewhere).
Children with special educational needs
13. Sections 153(1) to (3), 154 and 159(5) (b) of this Act, and paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 9 to this Act, apply in relation to pupil referral units as they apply in relation to maintained schools.
School attendance orders
14.—(1) Where a pupil referral unit is named in a school attendance order—

(a) the local education authority shall inform the teacher in charge of the unit, and

(b) if another local education authority are responsible for determining the arrangements for the admission of pupils to the unit, that authority shall admit the child to the unit;

but paragraph (b) above does not affect any power to exclude from a unit a pupil who is already a registered pupil there.
(2) The reference to a school in section 182(4) of this Act does not include a pupil referral unit.
(3) A local education authority shall, before deciding to specify a particular pupil referral unit in a notice under section 182(2) of this Act where another local education authority are responsible for determining the arrangements for the admission of pupils to the unit, consult that authority and, if they decide to specify the unit in the notice, they shall serve notice in writing of their decision on that authority.
(4) Section 183(7) and (8) of this Act applies where a notice is served on a local education authority under sub-paragraph (3) above as it applies where notice is served under subsection (6) of that section.
(5) The parent of a child in respect of whom a school attendance order is in force may not under section 184 of this Act request the local education authority to amend the order by substituting a pupil referral unit for the school named in the order.
(6) Where a child is a registered pupil at both a pupil referral unit and at a school other than a unit, the references in section 188 of this Act to the school at which he is a registered pupil shall be read as references to the unit.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 237ZA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 323ZB:
Before Schedule 16, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE
UNIFORM STATUTORY TRUSTS FOR EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS
1. The trustees may, after payment of any expenses incurred in connection with the administration of the trust, apply the capital and income of the relevant trust assets for any of the following purposes—

(a) in or towards the purchase of a site for, or the erection, improvement or enlargement of, the premises of any relevant school in the area,

(b) for the maintenance of any relevant school in the area, or

(c) for the maintenance of a teacher's house for use in connection with any relevant school in the area.

2. The trustees may also, after payment of any expenses incurred in connection with the administration of the trust, apply the income of the relevant trust assets for any of the following purposes—

(a) in or towards the provision of advice, guidance and resources (including materials) in connection with any matter related to the management of, or education provided at, any relevant school in the area,

(b) the provision of services for the carrying out of any inspection of any relevant school in the area required by the Education (Schools) Act 1992, or

(c) to defray the cost of employing or engaging staff in connection with—

(i) the application of income of the trust assets referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above, or

(ii) the application of capital or income of the trust assets referred to in paragraph 1 above").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 295B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 323A to 324D:
Page 209, line 20, at end insert:
(". In section 16(1) (transfer of schools to new sites, etc), "any county school or" and the words following "the new site" are omitted.").
Page 209, line 27, leave out paragraph 11 and insert:
(". In section 50 (provision of board and lodging otherwise than at school)—

(a) in subsection (1) "by them" is omitted, and

(b) in subsection (2) after "with respect to the" there is inserted "religion or".

In section 52 (recovery of cost of board and lodging otherwise than at school), in paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1), "by the authority" is omitted.").
Page 209, line 39, at end insert:
(". Section 56 (power to provide education otherwise than at school) is omitted.").
Page 210, line 6, leave out ("Section 63(2)") and insert ("That subsection").
Page 210, line 22, after ("(c) (i)") insert ("after "premises" there is inserted "or on a transfer of the school to a new site" and").
Page 210, line 39, after ("1993") insert:
("( ) in the definition of "registered pupil", for "pupil registered as such" there is substituted "person registered as a pupil" ").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 323A was debated with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 323A to 324D en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 324E not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 325:
Page 211, leave out line 35 and insert:
(". In section 6(2) of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 (payment of tuition and boarding fees for pupils at non-maintained schools)—

(a) for "the Education Act 1981" there is substituted "Part III of the Education Act 1993",

(b) for "not maintained by them or another local education authority" (in both places) there is substituted "which is not a maintained school",

(c) for "schools maintained by them and schools maintained by other local education authorities" there is substituted "maintained schools",

(d) for "provided by them" in paragraphs (a) (ii) and (b) there is substituted "provided",

(e) paragraph (a) (iii) is omitted, and

(f) at the end there is added—

"and in this subsection "maintained school" means any school maintained by a local education authority and any grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school".
In section 10 of that Act")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 326 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 327A and 328:
Page 212, leave out lines 9 to 12.
Page 212, line 24, leave out paragraph 34 and insert:
(".—(1) Section 1 of the Education Act 1964 (middle schools) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after "1980" there is inserted "proposals with respect to a grant-maintained school or proposed grant-maintained school are submitted to the Secretary of State under sections 45, 46, 91 or 92 of the Education Act 1993 or proposals with respect to a county school are published under section 248 of that Act".
(3) In subsection (3), for "1962" there is substituted "1993".).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 327A was debated with Amendment No. 266C and Amendment No. 328 was debated with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 328ZZZA:
Page 213, line 32, at end insert:
("The Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70)
Section 101(9) (a) of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities) is omitted.
In section 104(2) (a) of that Act (teachers not disqualified for being members of committees) for "for the purposes of the enactments relating to education" there is substituted "exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such of the authority's functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their capacity as local education authorities.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 328ZZZB:
Page 214, line 45, at end insert:
(". In Section 26 (exception for single-sex establishments)—
"(4) Section 23 does not apply to the provision of education in single-sex establishments unless there is discrimination by such provision over a continuous period of three years.".").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are intended to probe the Government's reaction to the case of Regina v. Birmingham City Council ex parte The Equal Opportunities Commission (14th October 1992).
Perhaps a word of background would be helpful. The background to this amendment lies with earlier legal proceedings brought against Birmingham City Council by the Equal Opportunities Commission which culminated in a judgment in this House in February 1989 to the effect that the council, as the local education authority, must not, in discharging its duty to secure the availability (for the city) of sufficient schools providing secondary education, discriminate in the provision of selective schools for girls.
The case arose because Birmingham maintained four voluntary aided boys' grammar schools with an aggregate of 390 places and two voluntary aided girls' schools with an aggregate of 210 places. That was found by this House to constitute unlawful sexual discrimination as boys had greater access to selective education than girls.
Subsequently, one of the boys' schools, Handsworth Grammar School, secured grant-maintained status. The second legal case brought by the Equal Opportunities Commission was to determine whether the provision of boys' grammar school places at Handsworth Grammar School, notwithstanding its grant-maintained status, was relevant to the duty on the city council not to discriminate in the provision of selective school places.
In the second case that was determined by the Court of Appeal on 14th October 1992 it was found that the relevant pool of school places is the pool of free places in single sex schools providing grammar school education within the area of the local education authority.
In the case of The Equal Opportunities Commission v. Birmingham City Council in the Court of Appeal where judgment was given on 14th October 1992, the court made the following comments:
"It is noteworthy that in the important paper entitled 'Choice and Diversity, a New Framework for Schools', which was presented to Parliament by the Secretaries for State for Education and Wales in July 1992, no reference was made to the requirements of the Sex Discrimination Act. This Act, and

1499
comparable legislation in the field of race relations, requires close examination when the duties and obligations of bodies responsible for the provision of public sector education are being formulated.
It seems to us that if and when further legislation in the field of education is being considered it is important that account shall be taken of:
(a) the fact that both the Secretary of State and local education authorities retain under the present legislation some overall responsibilities for public sector education as a whole"—
the Court of Appeal would presumably have included the funding authorities if the judgment had been made after the Bill was published on 30th October 1992—
"(b) the fact that the discrimination with which a court would be likely to be primarily concerned would be discrimination against an individual boy or girl or groups of boys or girls.
In these circumstances we consider that amendments should be introduced to enable the elimination of discrimination to take place in accordance with a suitable and sensible timescale. Schools and school places cannot be provided at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, account must be taken of the fact that the risks of discrimination may vary from year to year or even from term to term. Even if precisely equal numbers of places are provided at particular types of school both for boys and girls, girls may require to achieve a higher mark to obtain admission. Under the present legislation this might constitute a form of unlawful discrimination. But the disparities would be likely to vary from year to year and be due to factors over which local education authorities or governing bodies could not possibly exercise control. It may therefore be right to provide that unlawful discrimination could only be proved if over a period a pattern of discrimination could be established".
The Government have been invited by Birmingham City Council to respond to the court's observations. These two amendments are ways in which the anxieties expressed by the Court of Appeal can effectively be addressed.
The first amendment makes the provision of education in single-sex establishments by a local education authority not amount to sex discrimination unless such provision is discriminatory over a continuous period of three years. It therefore avoids the problem of an LEA being subject to a finding of unlawful sex discrimination because of fluctuations in demand for single-sex places or, in the case of selective places, fluctuations in performance between the sexes on a year by year basis, unless those fluctuations provide a continuous pattern over at least three years.
The second amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring proceedings on account of an act of unlawful sex discrimination by an LEA in the carrying out of its education functions, unless notice is given to the LEA and the Secretary of State and, where the proceedings are based on the provision of education in single-sex establishments, a period of one year has elapsed without the LEA bringing forward proposals to remedy the discrimination.
Without that machinery, LEAs are unduly exposed to the hazards of proceedings being brought in the courts by individual claimants. While at present notice must be given to the Secretary of State of such an action, the waiting period before the claim can be brought is only two months. That is not an adequate time to allow for LEAs to bring forward proposals to remedy the cause of discrimination, either in the form of proposals for the opening of a new school, the
1500
closure of an existing school or the change in the character of an existing school. For example, by a change from single-sex to co-educational provision.
LEAs must allow time for adequate consultation with parents and governing bodies and for proposals to be considered by the Secretary of State. The period of one year is designed to provide for all that to happen. It is still a tight timetable. But it is designed to prevent an LEA drawing out the process to the detriment of individuals who suffer discrimination. The objective must be to ensure the effective implementation of the law and the vital principles behind the law, rather than bringing the law into disrepute by a palpably unsatisfactory arrangement.
It would be helpful if we could have the Government's reaction to the Court of Appeal judgment, and indeed to what is suggested in the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I shall speak first to my Amendment No. 328ZZA. It is a technical amendment which marks no new departures, but merely seeks to put proposals for single-sex schools to become co-educational, made under the provisions of the current Bill, on the same footing as proposals made under existing legislation.
The Sex Discrimination Act sensibly recognises that where a school is moving from single-sex to co-educational status, numbers and provision cannot be made equal in one move. A period of transition is necessary. The Act therefore allows for a transitional exemption order to authorise admissions arrangements for the period specified in the order which might otherwise be considered discriminatory.
Rather than place on responsible bodies the additional burden of making separate applications for such orders, the Sex Discrimination Act provides that whenever proposals are made to the Secretary of State involving a change of character from a single-sex to a co-educational school, those proposals shall also be taken to be an application for a transitional exemption order. That arrangement does not affect consideration of the merits of the proposals to change the character of the school, and comes into effect only if, after proper consideration, the proposals are accepted.
The amendment extends the transitional exemption arrangement to proposals for the alteration of schools made under the provisions of the Bill. It is sensible that proposals designed to do the same thing, in this case change a school from being a single-sex establishment, should be treated in the same way, whatever body they are made by. The existing arrangements are fair and workable and should also apply to the new provisions. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 328ZZZB and 328ZZZC.
I have every sympathy with the intention behind the noble Lord's amendments. Compliance with the Sex Discrimination Act brings difficulties for local education authorities (and, if this Bill is enacted, the Funding Agency for Schools) in carrying out their duties to provide school places where some of that provision is in single sex schools. Many pupils and their parents value single sex education, and, though

1501
there is no obligation for such education to be provided, many authorities do so. Where this happens the LEA has a duty under the Sex Discrimination Act to ensure equality of opportunity.
I am aware of the judgment delivered in the Court of Appeal last October in the Birmingham case in which the learned judge suggested changes to the law to secure that unlawful discrimination could be proved only if over a period of time a pattern of discrimination could be established. The court recognised that the incidence of demand for places at single sex schools might vary, and that school places could not be provided at the drop of a hat. The court acknowledged that this was a difficult area and that there was no easy solution.
The Government have given these very complex matters long and hard consideration. We hold to the principle of equality of opportunity enshrined in the Sex Discrimination Act. We recognise that our reforms have introduced new complications. To add or take away places at grant-maintained schools is beyond the control of an LEA, yet since the Birmingham judgment we must assume that authorities must normally ensure equality of access or provision in all the maintained schools in their area, including those that are grant-maintained.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment will be to require LEAs to rectify an anomaly in the provision of places at single sex schools, whether by allowing them a longer timescale or by providing that they publish notices within one year of their intention to create or take away places where an individual has brought a complaint of sex discrimination.
I do not believe that this is the best way to proceed. Even over a longer period of time, it is not easy to provide new places. It is arguably less easy to remove them, and the outcome of all the activity envisaged by these amendments may very well add to the considerable number of surplus places in the system. Our consideration of these issues in the light of the Birmingham judgment has convinced us that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord is premature.
A further case is now pending in which judicial review has been sought of the decision to close Kettering Boys' School. The school is to close in August because it is no longer viable. Having considered the situation in the light of the Birmingham judgment, we have concluded that it is highly desirable to have the view of the court on whether Northamptonshire LEA are in breach of their statutory duty to ensure equality of access to single sex education for boys and girls before contemplating fresh legislation in this complex and sensitive area. I understand that the appellant is seeking to have the hearing expedited, but it will not be heard in time for any changes to be made—if any are necessary—in this Bill. Given the sensitivity of this subject, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Judd: I take the last point made by the Minister. I am grateful for the sensitive way in which she has replied. I notice that she does not reject the amendment out of hand but suggests that it is premature. I believe that there is a good deal to be considered in what she said. I hope that, depending on
1502
what happens in the courts, she will be ready to look again at what we have put forward in the amendments to see whether if the need arises in future something may be done to meet it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.328ZZZC not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No.328ZZA:
Page 215, line 3, at end insert:
(".—( ) Where under section 173(2) (b) of this Act a local education authority serve notice of proposals for a maintained special school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only, the responsible body shall be treated as having applied for the making by the Secretary of State of a transitional exemption order, and the Secretary of State may make such an order accordingly.
( ) Where under section 91 of this Act the governing body of a grant-maintained school publish proposals for the school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only and Part II of this Act has effect with the modifications in section 96(2) to (7) of this Act in relation to the proposals, then—

(a) paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1975 Act shall not apply unless the proposals require the approval of the Secretary of State, and

(b) in any other case, the governing body shall be treated as having applied for the making by the funding authority of a transitional exemption order, and the funding authority may make such an order accordingly.

( ) Where under section 92 of this Act the funding authority submit to the Secretary of State a copy of proposals for a school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only, then—

(a) if the proposals require the approval of the Secretary of State, the governing body shall be treated as having applied for the making by him of a transitional exemption order, and

(b) in any other case, the governing body shall be treated as having applied for the making by the funding authority of such an order,

and the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the funding authority may make such an order accordingly.
( ) Where proposals made by the Secretary of State under section 221 of this Act—

(a) are for a school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only, and

(b) have effect as mentioned in section 223(3) of this Act, the responsible body shall be treated as having applied for the making by the Secretary of State of a transitional exemption order, and the Secretary of State may make such an order accordingly.

( ) Where—

(a) by reason of section 249(4) (b) of this Act any proposals for a school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only may not be determined until the Secretary of State has made his determination with respect to any proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status, and

(b) the proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status and the proposals for the school to cease to be such an establishment are approved (with or without modification),

paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1975 Act shall not apply but the new governing body shall be treated as having applied for the making by the Secretary of State of a transitional exemption order, and he may make such an order accordingly.
( ) In this paragraph—
"responsible body" has the same meaning as in section 22 of the 1975 Act,
"the 1975 Act" means the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and
"transitional exemption order" has the same meaning as in section 27 of the 1975 Act,

1503
and references to proposals for a school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only are references to proposals which are or include proposals for such an alteration in a school's admissions arrangements as is mentioned in section 27(1) of the 1975 Act (single-sex establishments turning co-educational).").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No.328ZZA was spoken to with Amendment No.328ZZZB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch Match moved Amendments Nos. 328ZA and 328ZB:
Page 215, line 30, leave out from ("for") to end of line 31 and insert ("the words from "special arrangements" to "1981" there is substituted "section 155 or (Exceptional provision of education in school or elsewhere) of the Education Act 1993".").
Page 216, line 7, leave out paragraph 69 and insert:
(". In section 14 (approval of school premises)—

(a) in subsection (1) (c), after "school" there is inserted "or the transfer of a school to a new site", and

(b) subsection (4) is omitted.

In section 16 (provisions supplementary to sections 12 to 15), after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to the transfer of a school to a new site—

(a) if the transfer is authorised by an order under section 16(1) of the Education Act 1944,

(b) if at the time of transfer the school is intended to return to the existing site within three years, or

(c) if in the case of a county school the new site is in the same area and the local education authority are satisfied that it is expedient that the school should be transferred to the new site either because it is not reasonably practicable to make to the existing premises of the school the alterations necessary for securing that they conform to the prescribed standards or in consequence of any movement of population or of any action taken or proposed to be taken under the enactments relating to housing or to town and country planning.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 328ZA was spoken to with Amendment No. 237ZA and Amendment No. 328ZB was spoken to with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 328A:
Page 216, line 18 at end insert:
("70A. In section 30 (governors' annual report to parents), in subsection (1) (a) after "report" there is inserted "including in particular steps connected with—

(i) the quality of education provided by the school,

(ii) the efficient management of the financial resources made available to the school,

(iii) the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school".").

The noble Baroness said: The grouping list shows this amendment as having been debated. After a little checking, I am satisfied that it was not in fact debated. I have mentioned this to the Government and Opposition Front Benches, so I hope that it has not taken them too much unawares.
This raises the subject of the governors' report and, in particular, the issue of quality. The aim of the amendment is to produce a new way of improving quality assurance in schools by requiring the governing body to give specific attention to certain key
1504
issues on a regular basis. The amendment seeks to expand the reporting requirements in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Section 30(1) of that Act provides that a school's articles of government shall provide for a report to be made each year containing a summary of the steps taken by the governing body to discharge its functions. It is here that I propose the insertion of the amendment. The steps are described as in particular those connected with:

"(i) the quality of education provided by the school,

(ii) the efficient management of the financial resources made available to the school,

(iii) the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school".

The section in the 1986 Act goes on to provide that the report should be as brief as is reasonably consistent with the requirements as to its contents. A later subsection provides that the Secretary of State may, by order, make amendments to the subsection to which I have just referred.
It might be said that, given the ability of the Secretary of State to make amendments, the information that I propose should be included in the reports could be required by such an order to be included. Though many Members of the Committee have objections to such clauses, this is at least one occasion when perhaps it might not be objectionable. However, I should like to see whether we can deal with the matter in the Bill now.
The three subject areas which I have mentioned are not new either in content or in the way in which they are worded. They are taken from the 1992 Act where they are part of the definition of the duties of the chief inspector and the registered inspectors. Each four-yearly school inspection has to be conducted with regard to these three criteria and to educational standards. The inspection report will then need the governing body to produce an action plan. We have already referred on a number of occasions to the governors' action plan. Thereafter, there is an annual obligation on the governors to report in the following three years on the extent to which the proposals set out in the action plan have been carried into effect.
The amendment proposes two main improvements. The first is to give governing bodies a stimulus to consider the breadth and the balance of the curriculum that they are providing. There are requirements for league tables. The governors' attention is drawn each year to particular kinds of outputs. There may be a better balance between consideration of educational achievements shown in league tables and the quality of the education provided. One should not separate the two considerations. The 1992 Act also covers financial efficiency. The amendment seeks to allow scope for the school's efforts to achieve improvement in financial efficiency to be reported, though what we are principally concerned about is not outputs. It is the quality of education provided—in other words, inputs.
Secondly, the amendment is intended to direct the governing body towards a little self-criticism and self-improvement and to help to avoid any complacency between four-yearly inspections.
The action plan, and the requirement to report on the steps taken following the action plan, may mean that there are other problems which may be emerging. It is intended that these amendments would require the governors not to be subject only to the tunnel vision of what is within the action plan. It is not intended that these requirements be cumbersome; they are merely to prompt governors to reflect once a year on what they have actually done.
Perhaps I may make a personal comment in that regard. The primary school whose governing body I chair has recently been preparing its annual report to parents. We realised that we had become so concerned with reporting the required detail that we were not seeing the whole in a very clear fashion. The minutes of the meeting reported my comment that we had come up with rather a bland document. The author of the report sent me note saying that that was not surprising given the constraints on what has to be within the report.
I hope that this amendment may win some sympathy from the Minister. There may be other means of giving effect to it, but it is worth raising the issue. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Section 30 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 requires the articles of government of every local authority-maintained school to provide a governors' report to parents. The report must contain a summary of the steps taken by the governing body in the discharge of their functions during the period since the last report. That summary will clearly include references to all main actions that the school has taken during the previous year.
Among the specific requirements of the annual report is the provision of information on public examinations. The Education (Schools) Act 1992 which this House considered last year, also contained provisions to extend the list of contents of the annual reports. That power could be used, for example, to make the reports include details about national curriculum assessment, pupil routes and attendance.
A further requirement is that the report must set out the steps that have been taken to strengthen community links. We believe that all schools should have very close involvement with the community and should be required to account for the way in which such links are being forged. The report must also contain a financial statement indicating in general terms how the fund made available to the governing body by the local authority in respect of its budget share under LMS has been used and how any gifts to the school have been applied.
It must also reproduce or summarise the financial statement provided to the governing body by the local education authority. The criteria quoted in the amendment—for example, those referring to a pupil's spiritual and cultural development—will already be familiar to many. They are the criteria to be used when schools of all kinds are inspected by registered inspectors or, in the case of denominational schools, by denominational inspectors.
1506
Following those inspections the governing body will be required to produce an action plan. It will then have to record in its annual report progress on the action plan. If the action plan is not complete, it will have to return to this issue year on year until the parent body is satisfied that the information is at an end. The governing body is then required to make the report available to parents.
A school's annual report is not, however, the only method by which its performance can be reported back to parents. The governing body is also required to hold annual parents' meetings. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss both the governors' annual report to parents and how the governing body, the head teacher and the LEA have carried out their responsibilities in relation to the school. These parents' meetings therefore give parents the opportunity to comment on a wide range of matters concerning the conduct of the school, including the quality of education at the school and the school's financial management.
However, they are not merely talking shops. Parents are given positive powers to influence the conduct of a school. If enough parents are present at the meeting, they may pass resolutions on any matters which may properly be discussed at the meeting. The governing body, head teacher and LEA are then required to consider any resolutions passed by the parents. The outcome of that consideration must then be reported in the next governors' report. Your Lordships will therefore see that the existing arrangements for LEA-maintained schools, along with the inspection arrangements, already cover the ground dealt with by the amendment. So I do not believe that it is desirable to overload the Bill with a mass of detail, much of which repeats existing arrangements.
Earl Russell: I am not sure that the Minister has quite taken on board the point of my noble friend's amendment. I would not go quite so far as to say that the link between quality and performance indicators is, like the resemblance to any living person, purely coincidental. But the overlap is not total. The noble Baroness might take the point better if she were to consider the story of Sir Alec Clegg as a junior teacher, teaching his first O-level class. He bounced triumphantly into the staffroom, saying that he had achieved passes with 27 out of 28 of his class, only to get the reply from the senior teacher, "In any sensible system, Clegg, you'd have got the sack for a result like that".
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps it is the lateness of the hour that is leading me to take exception for a second time this evening to an interpretation of what I have said. If I had said that the only information imparted to parents was examination results, I could clearly not only be criticised, but would deserve to be criticised. However, we now have a system where all the information about a school: what it teaches; how it teaches; its policies for special needs and for every aspect of school life—moral, cultural, spiritual, academic, mental and physical—is made available to parents. There is an annual meeting at which parents

1507
are given an opportunity not only to discuss, ask questions and to criticise, but also to pass resolutions. We also have informal apparatus, such as parents coming into schools for parents' evenings and to meet tutors and form teachers. I do not believe that there has ever been a more exposed system which allows parents to have as much information as they like. So to come back to me and to say that I was saying that the result of one examination can somehow depict all of that is to put a gross misinterpretation on what I said.
I entirely understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was saying. I believe that I have covered quality. It is a judgment to be made by parents in the three years between annual inspections, but when annual inspections are made, they cover not only academic and public examinations but all other aspects of the school also. So there will be a properly objective assessment of the quality of the school. On the efficient management of financial controls, I have already said that a financial summary is made available to parents. I believe that spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is also covered.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not think that the Minister has done a great deal more than repeat a good deal of what I said when moving the amendment. I take her point about what is already provided, but I do not think that her reply has really addressed my anxiety that the sight of the wood may be lost for some of the trees, which is something that underlies this and about which I retain anxiety. However, it is late and I shall read what the Minister has said. I have had the section of the 1986 Act open by me as she has spoken and have followed her references. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.328B:
Page 216, line 20 at end insert:
(". In paragraph 1(3) and (4) of Schedule 2 (constitution of appeal committees) "or of any education committee of the authority", in each place where it occurs, is omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: This was spoken to with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 328C, 328D and 329:
Page 216, line 29, at end insert:
("The Value Added Tax Act 1983 (c. 55)
In Note (2) of Group 6 of Schedule 6 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983 (meaning of "school" for purposes of determining whether provision of education is an exempt supply) for "1981" there is substituted "1993".").
Page 217, line 15, at end insert:
(". In section 5(4) (b) (appointment of parent governors by governing body) the words after "by the authority" are omitted.").
Page 217, line 41, at end insert:
(". In section 47 (abolition of corporal punishment), at the end of subsection (6) (b) there is added "or by the funding authority or a local education authority under paragraph 7A or 7B of Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1993".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 329ZA:
Page 218, line 5, at end insert:
(". In section 38 (duties of local education authority and governing body in relation to appointment of staff)—
( ) in subsection (4) (c) the words after "to the post" are omitted, and
( ) in subsection (6) (b) "or (4) (c) (ii)" is omitted,
and any provision made by virtue of subsection (4) (c) (ii) of that section in the articles of government for any county, controlled, special agreement or maintained special school shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment was debated with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 329ZB not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 329ZC and 329ZD:
Page 218, line 41, after ("omitted") insert:
("( ) in paragraph 7(7) the words after "by the authority" are omitted.").
Page 218, line 44, at end insert:
("The Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9)
Section 1(1) (j) of the Local Government Act 1988 (defined authorities) is omitted.
In Schedule 2 to that Act the words from "A joint education committee" to "1944" are omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 329ZA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 329A:
Page 218, line 44, at end insert:
(". In Schedule 3, in paragraphs 7(c) (1) and 8(d) for "or" there is substituted "and".").
The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment is to make possible both oral and written representations at exclusion appeal hearings. The procedure for exclusion appeal hearings is regulated by the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. That sets out that authorities must choose between making oral and written representations. That has been interpreted liberally for several years, so that, for example, the LEA has often been allowed to submit a written representation of the case ahead of the hearing, which has been available to parents, and has then been represented in person at the hearing to go over the written statement and answer questions in front of the panel and the pupil's parents. That has been widely regarded as a fair method of handling such hearings. It gives parents time to examine the LEA's or governors' case ahead of the hearing, but also gives them the chance to hear the case made orally. This is particularly helpful for parents who are not confident with written English.
The legality of that practice has, however, been thrown into doubt by an ombudsman's decision (Rotherham, 1992) which ruled that allowing the LEA to make both written and oral representations was maladministration, given the letter of the law. The technical grounds for the finding are difficult to challenge. The commonsense reason for challenging that development is more straightforward. It seems very likely to lead to proceedings which are more, not less, difficult for parents to prepare for, follow and

1509
participate in. Natural justice would appear to be reduced. The only way to put the commonsense approach on a firm legal footing is to amend the original legislation. No convincing account of the reasoning behind the original wording has been forthcoming since the Rotherham ruling.
It has been suggested that there may be a need to safeguard against LEAs introducing new evidence at a hearing which should have been shared earlier. However, the local authority associations' Code of Practice On Procedure for appeals committees, which may be cited by the ombudsman states:
"if any of the parties intends to raise matters or produce documents at the hearing which are not covered by the statement of decision [i.e. the initial decision to exclude] or the notice of appeal, these should he submitted to the clerk to the appeal committee in good time before the hearing. If substantial new issues are raised for the first time at the hearing … an adjournment may be necessary to allow any party taken by surprise to consider the issues".
Observation of that guidance should safeguard against any unfair advantage arising as a result of the proposed change. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am indeed sympathetic. The Government believe that two considerations should be paramount when holding an exclusion appeal hearing. First, the emphasis should be on the need for an early decision to be made in the interests of the child involved. Secondly, in the interests of common justice and a full and impartial hearing of the facts, all parties should be entitled to present relevant facts, both orally and in writing.
The Government find no difficulty in accepting the principle of the amendment, but we should like the opportunity to reflect further on its ramifications, notably in terms of ensuring that—in the interests of a fair hearing—the pupil and his parents enjoy identical rights to those now proposed for the LEA.
If the Committee is content, therefore, we shall consider the matter further, in order to determine how best to give effect to the principle of the amendment. For example, it may not be necessary to introduce a further amendment to the Bill: Schedule 3 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 already contains a power for the Secretary of State to amend the schedule by order. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me time to reflect upon what he had to say.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am encouraged by the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 329B and 329C:
Page 219, line 14, leave out ("(4) (a) (standing advisory councils on religious education)") and insert ("(standing advisory councils on religious education)—
( ) in subsection (4) (a)").
Page 219, line 16, at end insert ("and
( ) at the end of that section there is added—
"(13) The council shall send a copy of each report published by them under subsection (9) above—
1510

(a) in the case of a council for an area in England, to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, and

(b) in the case of a council for an area in Wales, to the Curriculum Council for Wales." ").

The noble Viscount said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 276. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 330 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 331:
Page 220, line 21, at end insert:
(". In section 111 (charges for board and lodging at boarding schools)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "at the expense of" to the end there is substituted "there shall be payable in respect of the board and lodging by the parent of the pupil concerned (in the case of a school maintained by a local education authority) to the authority and (in the case of a grant-maintained school) to the governing body charges not exceeding the cost to the authority or governing body of providing the board and lodging",

(b) in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) and the words following it there is substituted—

"(b) the local education authority for his area are of the opinion that education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have cannot otherwise be provided for him,

then, where the school is maintained by the local education authority for his area, that authority shall remit the whole of the charges payable under this section and, in any other case, that authority shall pay the whole of the charges payable under this section to the authority which maintains the school",

(c) for subsection (3) (b) there is substituted—

"(b) the local education authority for his area are of the opinion that education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have cannot otherwise be provided for him",

(d) subsection (4) is omitted, and

(e) in subsection (5)—

(i) for "a local education authority" there is substituted "the local education authority for the pupil's area", and

(ii) in paragraph (b), after "payable" there is inserted "to another local education authority or" and "provided under arrangements made by the authority" is omitted.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 332:
Page 221, line 12, at end insert:
(". In Schedule 2 (curriculum and assessment councils) in paragraph 8(1) (payments for members) for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
"(b) shall, as regards any member of the Council in whose case the Secretary of State may so determine, pay or make provision for the payment of such sums by way of pension, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of him as the Secretary of State may determine."").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 332 is a technical amendment and amends Schedule 2 to the Education Reform Act 1988 to bring the method of payment for the Curriculum Council of Wales members into line with those agreed by the Committee earlier this week in respect of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 332ZA and 332ZB:
Page 221, line 31, leave out from ("omitted,") to end of line 35.
Page 222, line 25, at end insert:
(". In section 13 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (voting rights of members of committees)—

(a) subsection (2) (b) is omitted,

(b) for subsection (5) there is substituted—

"(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent the appointment of a person who is not a member of a local education authority as a voting member of—

(a) any committee or sub-committee appointed by the local authority exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such of the authority's functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their Capacity as a local education authority,

(b) any joint committee appointed by two or more local authorities exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such of those authorities' functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their capacity as local education authorities, or

(c) any sub-committee appointed by any such committee or joint committee exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging that committee's functions with respect to education,

where that appointment is required by directions given by the Secretary of State under section [Power of Secretary of State to direct appointment of members of committees] of the Education Act 1993 (power of Secretary of State to direct appointment of members of committees).",

(c) subsection (6) is omitted, and

(d) in subsection (7) for "education committee or sub-committee of an education committee" there is substituted "committee, joint committee or sub-committee appointed for the purpose mentioned in that subsection".

In Schedule 1 to that Act (political balance on local authority committees) in paragraph 4—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—

(i) the definition of "education committee" is omitted, and

(ii) in paragraph (a) of the definition of "ordinary committee", "education committee, their" is omitted, and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2) in paragraph (a) of the definition of "ordinary committee", "education committee or" is omitted").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 332ZA was spoken to with Amendment No. 266C. Amendment No. 332ZB was spoken to with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 332ZC:
Page 222, line 26, leave out ("the Local Government and Housing Act 1989") and insert ("that Act").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 333A and 333 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 334:
Page 223, line 2, at end insert:
(". In section 10 (interpretation) in subsection (1) after "immediately before it became a grant-maintained school" there is added "or which was established in pursuance of proposals published under section 46 of the Education Act 1993 and either any trust deed relating to the school or the statement required by paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to that Act
1512
provides for religious education for pupils at the school to be given in accordance with the faith and practice of the Church of England".").
The right reverend Prelate said: I understand that the Government may not have had time to give full consideration to the amendment. It is a small technical amendment. It brings the Diocesan Board of Education Measure into line with the Bill where there are new Church grant-maintained schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am happy in principle with the proposed amendment. It simply includes new Church of England grant-maintained schools in the definition of Church schools covered by the diocesan boards. Will the right reverend Prelate allow me to inspect the wording between now and Report? I accept the principle of the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that in doing so she will glance also at the wording of Amendment No. 333. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 334ZA not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 334ZB:
Page 223, line II, at end insert:
("139A. In Schedule 2 to that Act there is inserted—
"(k) a course provided for persons with profound and multiple learning disabilities at an institution designated by the Secretary of State."").
The noble Lord said: I shall attempt to be brief in moving the amendment. It is a small but important amendment. It is proposed to include the kind of courses provided at the Orchard Hill further education centre and other equivalent institutions for those with profound and multiple learning disabilities among Schedule 2 courses dealt with by the further education funding council. The students who take those courses have great difficulty with the basic skills required to relate to other people and to society as a whole. It is very important for such students because it enables them to have a far better quality of life than they would otherwise have. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to comment favourably on the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment seeks to add to the duties on the further education funding councils under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Under the Act, the funding councils have a duty to secure full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds. They also have a duty to secure part-time education for those over compulsory school age and full-time education for those aged 19 and over of the kind listed in Schedule 2 to the Act. LEAs have the duty to secure all types of provision not covered by the scope of the duties on the councils. The duties on both the funding councils and LEAs embrace provision for those with learning difficulties. The amendment would add to the funding councils' duties provision for students with profound and multiple learning difficulties at institutions designated by the Secretary of State.
It is important to be clear that we are not debating the importance of provision for students with profound and multiple learning difficulties. I agree

1513
with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that for such people that provision is an absolute lifeline. The Government have no doubt about the value of provision for these students. Nor are we debating whether there should be a duty to secure this type of provision. The Government are clear that there should be such a duty and we have provided for that under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
What we are debating is whether this duty should lie wholly with the further education funding councils. As I have explained, the Further and Higher Education Act provides that any type of further education provision that is not subject to the duty applying to the funding councils is automatically subject to the duty applying to LEAs.. I do not accept that making provision for certain students the responsibility of the funding councils will give it higher status. Nor do I accept that giving a duty to the funding councils rather than to LEAs will make it more likely to be discharged. The duty on.LEAs is no less strong than on the funding councils.
I believe therefore that the amendment is unnecessary. It would simply transfer to the funding councils part of the responsibilities which the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 at present leaves with LEAs. But a duty is a duty: it is equally strong whether the funding councils or the LEAs have to discharge it. Of course, it is for the funding councils and LEAs to determine what provision they should support in pursuit of their respective responsibility. But they cannot ignore the needs of students with learning difficulties. Both the council and LEAs have a specific duty to have regard to the requirements of these students.
We understand the anxiety which lies behind the amendment. But it would be quite difficult for an LEA with Schedule 2 responsibilities to determine that a young adult has such profound and multiple learning disabilities that he should be the responsibility of a funding council rather than an LEA. That may give rise to a disagreement as to how profound are the disabilities. It would be extremely undignified to have internecine battles as regards how profound are the person's disabilities. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will agree that the duty to provide such education should rest with one body or another. The 1992 Act provides that the responsibility should rest with the LEAs.
Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for that reply. She made several points which bear further consideration. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): If Amendment No. 334ZC is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 334.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 334ZC:
Page 223, line 20 leave out paragraph 142 and insert:
(".—(1) In section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 (schools inspection), in subsection (7) for "section" there is substituted "Act".
(2) Schedule 2 to that Act is amended as follows.
(3) In paragraph 1, for the words from "body" (at the end of the definition of "appropriate authority") to the end there is substituted—
""inspection by a member of the Inspectorate" means a section 9 inspection carried out by a member of the Inspectorate or an inspection under section 2(2) (b), 3(1), 6(2) (b) or 7(1),
"member of the Inspectorate" means the Chief Inspector, any of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in England or, as the case may be, Wales and any additional inspector, and
"section 9 inspection" means an inspection under section 9,
and for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, special measures are required to be taken in relation to a school if the school is failing or likely to fail to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education."
(4) For "an inspection" in paragraphs 2, 3(5), 4(1), 5(1), 6 and 7 there is substituted "a section 9 inspection" and for "Every inspection" in paragraph 3(1) there is substituted "Every section 9 inspection".
(5) For paragraph 9 there is substituted—
"9.—(1) Where a section 9 inspection by a registered inspector has been completed, the inspector shall make in writing a report of the inspection and a summary of the report.
(2) Where the inspector is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school he shall submit a draft of the report of the inspection to the Chief Inspector.
(3) If the Chief Inspector so requests, an inspector who has submitted a draft under sub-paragraph (2) shall provide the Chief Inspector with such further information as the Chief Inspector may specify.
(4) The Chief Inspector shall inform an inspector who has submitted a draft under sub-paragraph (2) whether he agrees or disagrees with the inspector's opinion.
(5) Where—

(a) the Chief Inspector informs the inspector that he disagrees with the inspector's opinion, but

(b) the inspector remains of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school,

the inspector may not make a report expressing that opinion unless the terms in which he makes the report are substantially the same (except as to the statement required by sub-paragraph (7) (b)) as the draft or as a subsequent draft submitted to the Chief Inspector under this sub-paragraph.
(6) Where a subsequent draft is submitted under sub-paragraph (5), the Chief Inspector shall inform the inspector whether he agrees or disagrees with the inspector's opinion.
(7) A report made by a registered inspector who is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school shall—

(a) state his opinion, and

(b) state whether the Chief Inspector agrees or disagrees with his opinion.

(8) If a report of an inspection of a school by a registered inspector is made in circumstances where—

(a) he is of the opinion that special measures are not required to be taken in relation to the school, but

(b) in the latest report of an inspection of the school, the person making the report stated that in his opinion such measures were required to be taken and either that person was a member of the Inspectorate or the report stated that the Chief Inspector agreed with his opinion,

the person making the report shall state his opinion in the report.
9A.—(1) Where on the completion of any inspection of a school under section 2(2) (b), 3(1), 6(2) (b) or 7(1) by a member of the Inspectorate, he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school, he shall—

1515

(a) prepare in writing a report of the inspection and a summary of the report, and

(b) state his opinion in the report.

(2) If on the completion of any such inspection of a school by a member of the Inspectorate in circumstances where—

(a) he is of the opinion that special measures are not required to be taken in relation to the school, but

(b) in the latest report of an inspection of the school, the person making the report stated that in his opinion such measures were required to be taken and either that person was a member of the Inspectorate or the report stated that the Chief Inspector agreed with his opinion,

the member of the Inspectorate shall prepare in writing a report of the inspection and a summary of the report and state his opinion in the report.
(3) A report of a section 9 inspection of a school by a member of the Inspectorate shall, if he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school, state his opinion.
(4) If a report of a section 9 inspection of a school by a member of the Inspectorate is made in circumstances where—

(a) he is of the opinion that special measures are not required to be taken in relation to the school, but

(b) in the latest report of an inspection of the school, the person making the report stated that in his opinion such measures were required to be taken and either that person was a member of the Inspectorate or the report stated that the Chief Inspector agreed with his opinion,

the member of the Inspectorate shall state his opinion in the report.
9B.—(1) The carrying out of a section 9 inspection shall be completed by the time allowed under sub-paragraph (2) and the making of the report required by paragraph 9 shall be completed within the period allowed under sub-paragraph (2).
(2) The time, and the period, allowed shall be such as may be prescribed, subject to any such extension of the period as the Chief Inspector may consider necessary to make; but the total period allowed must not exceed the prescribed period extended by three months.
(3) The Chief Inspector shall give notice in writing of any extension under sub-paragraph (2) to—

(a) the inspector,

(b) the appropriate authority, and

(c) the Secretary of State, except in the case of a maintained nursery school.

(4) This paragraph does not apply to a section 9 inspection carried out by a member of the Inspectorate.
9C.—(1) In the case of a report of a section 9 inspection of a school, the person making it shall without delay—

(a) send a copy of the report together with the summary of it to the appropriate authority for the school, and

(b) if it states that he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken,in relation to the school, and either that person is a member of the Inspectorate or the report states that the Chief Inspector agrees with his opinion, send a copy of the report and summary to the Secretary of State.

(2) In the case of a report of an inspection of a school made by a member of the Inspectorate which is required by paragraph 9A to state that he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school, the member of the Inspectorate shall send a copy of the report together with the summary of it to the appropriate authority for the school and to the Secretary of State.
(3) In any case, copies of the report and summary shall be sent by the person who made the report to the Chief Inspector (unless the report was made by a member of the Inspectorate).
(4) In the case of—

(a) a special school which is not a maintained or grant-maintained special school, or

(b) an independent school approved by the Secretary of State under section 178(1) of the Education Act 1993 (approval of independent schools for children with statements),

the appropriate authority shall without delay send a copy of any report and summary sent to them under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) to the funding authority, or any local education authority, if the authority are paying fees in respect of the attendance of a registered pupil at the school.
(5) The appropriate authority shall—

(a) make any report and summary sent to the authority under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) available for inspection by members of the public at such times and at such place as may be reasonable,

(b) provide a copy of the report and summary, free of charge or in prescribed cases on payment of such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply), to any person who asks for one, and

(c) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every registered parent of a registered pupil at the school receives a copy of the summary as soon as is reasonably practicable."

(6) For paragraphs 10 and 11 there is substituted—
" 10.—(1) Where—

(a) a report of a section 9 inspection of a school, or

(b) a report of an inspection of a school made by a member of the Inspectorate which is required by paragraph 9A to state that he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school,

is sent to the appropriate authority they shall prepare a written statement of the action which they propose to take in the light of the report and the period within which they propose to take it.
(2) It is the duty of the appropriate authority to prepare the statement within the period allowed by this sub-paragraph, that is—

(a) such period as may be prescribed, or

(b) if, in the case of any report where the person making it states that he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school, and either that person is a member of the Inspectorate or the report states that the Chief Inspector agrees with his opinion, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the urgency of the case requires a shorter period, such period as the Secretary of State may direct,

but this sub-paragraph does not relieve the appropriate authority of any duty to prepare a statement which has not been performed within that period.
(3) Where such a statement has been prepared by the appropriate authority they shall, before the end of the prescribed period, send copies of it—

(a) to the Chief Inspector,

(b) to the Secretary of State, except in the case of a maintained nursery school, and

(c) in such circumstances as may be prescribed, to such other persons (if any) as may be prescribed.

(4) In the case of—

(a) a special school which is not a maintained or grant-maintained special school, or

(b) an independent school approved by the Secretary of State under section 178(1) of the Education Act 1993 (approval of independent schools for children with statements),

the appropriate authority shall, before the end of the prescribed period, send a copy of any such statement

1517
prepared by them to the funding authority, or any local education authority, if the authority are paying fees in respect of the attendance of a registered pupil at the school.
(5) The appropriate authority shall—

(a) make any statement prepared by them under this paragraph available for inspection by members of the public, at such times and at such place as may be reasonable,

(b) provide a copy of the statement, free of charge or in prescribed cases on payment of such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply), and

(c) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every registered parent of a registered pupil at the school receives a copy of the statement as soon as is reasonably practicable.

11.—(1) This paragraph applies in circumstances where—

(a) in a report of an inspection of a school the person who made it expressed the opinion that special measures were required to be taken in relation to the school,

(b) either that person was a member of the Inspectorate or the report stated that the Chief Inspector agreed with his opinion,

(c) a statement has been prepared under paragraph 10 or the period prescribed for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph has expired, and

(d) if any registered inspector or member of the Inspectorate has made a later report of an inspection of the school, he did not express the opinion in the report that special measures were not required to be taken in relation to the school.

(2) Regulations may make provision with a view to securing that any measures taken by the appropriate authority for improving the standard of education at the school are monitored in accordance with the regulations by such persons as may be prescribed.
(3) The regulations may, in particular, provide for reports to be made by such persons and at such intervals as may be prescribed.
(4) The regulations may authorise the Secretary of State to require the Chief Inspector to conduct further inspections of the school and prepare further reports of such inspections.
(5) In respect of cases where any report prepared in pursuance of a requirement imposed by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above—

(a) states that, in the opinion of the person who prepared the report, special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school, but the grounds for that opinion are substantially different from the grounds for the opinion in any preceding report by a registered inspector or member of the Inspectorate, or

(b) states that, in the opinion of that person, special measures are not required to be taken in relation to the school,

the regulations may make provision corresponding to any of the provisions made by this Part of this Schedule."
(7) For paragraph 12 of that Schedule is substituted—
"12.—(1) Where an inspection of a school is required
under section 9 but the Chief Inspector is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to secure that the school is inspected by a suitable registered inspector, he shall secure that it is inspected by a member of the Inspectorate.
(2) Where an inspection is conducted by a member of the Inspectorate by virtue of this paragraph, this Act shall have effect (unless the context otherwise requires)
1518
in relation to the inspection as if the member of the Inspectorate were a registered inspector.
(3) If the Chief Inspector so elects in the case of any inspection of a school by a member of the Inspectorate under section 2(2) (b), 3(1), 6(2) (b) or 7(1), that inspection shall be treated for the purposes of section 9(1) and (2) and this Part of this Schedule as if it were an inspection under section 9 and the member of the Inspectorate were a registered inspector".").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment ensures that all schools which are subject to regular inspection under Section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 but are not covered by Chapter I of Part V of the Bill are subject to equivalent provisions. Chapter I extends the Schools Act provisions, particularly in respect of the reporting process for those schools found to be at risk.
The schools covered by the amendment are non-maintained special schools, independent schools approved by the Secretary of State under Clause 178 for pupils with statements, city technology colleges (CTCs), city colleges for the technology of the arts (CCTAs) and maintained nursery schools. It is right that they should all be subject to the same regime in that respect. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: This must surely be sent to the Guinness Book of Records as the longest amendment ever: there are six pages of it. It gives us an insight into the disarray of government education policies. Only a year after the Education (Schools) Act 1992 was enacted and before the relevant section has been implemented, the Government have to bring forward a six-page amendment to a Bill which is a mere 225 pages in length. Further, having tabled the amendment, three days later the Government tabled a replacement. In fact, I am glad to say that there appears to be only one change and that is of a minor technical nature to paragraph 9C(2).
However, the amendment has some interesting elements. In new paragraph (3) at the beginning of the amendment the concept of,
"an acceptable standard of education"
is introduced; but it is introduced without a definition. I wonder whether the Minister can give a definition for the record. Such a "standard" would be acceptable to whom?
The amendment does not appear to require that a grant-maintained special school report should he sent to the former maintaining LEA, although an independent special school will have to send its inspection report to all LEAs that send children to the school. Why that discrepancy? What sort of nonsense does that make of the LEA continuing to plan special educational provision? It would be helpful if the Minister could enlighten the Committee on those points.
Earl Russell: Late government amendments always put us in something of a dilemma. If the Government do not move them they are accused of being inflexible; but, if they do, they are accused of giving us a great load of stuff which we do not have time to consider. I have some sympathy with the Government in that connection. However, will the Minister consider

1519
whether, with hindsight, it might have been wiser to defer tabling the Bill until some of those questions had been worked out.
Baroness Blatch: First, I must admit that it is a very long amendment and obviously very complicated because it covers a very important Act. As I said, it is simply bringing such schools into this part of the Bill—that is, Chapter I of Part V. These are the legal requirements to ensure that all the aspects are covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked me for a definition of "acceptable standards" and to whom schools would be accountable. It will be for Ofsted to determine, as it has done for all other schools, acceptable standards. It will be the inspectorate, through Ofsted, that will be making that judgment about schools.
The amendment, with appropriate modifications, makes directly parallel provision to that in Chapter I of Part V. Paragraph (5) substitutes four new paragraphs for the existing paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Schools Act. They parallel Clauses 194 to 197. They require a report to be written of every Section 9 inspection. They also require a registered inspector who is of the opinion, following an inspection, that the school is at risk, to get the agreement of the chief inspector to that opinion.
The new paragraph 9A requires a member of the inspectorate, who is of the opinion, following an inspection, that a school is at risk, to state his opinion in a report. The new paragraph 9B enables the chief inspector to extend the period for producing an inspection report by up to three months.
Paragraph 9C deals with the distribution of inspection reports and requires that at risk reports are sent to the Secretary of State.
Paragraph (6) parallels Clauses 198 and 200. Clause 198 requires the appropriate authority for the school to prepare an action plan for all inspection reports. It extends the Schools Act to require an action plan where a report made by a member of the inspectorate concludes that special measures need to be taken in relation to the school (the Schools Act requires this only in respect of inspections by registered inspectors). Clause 200 gives the Secretary of State the power to make provision, by regulations, for monitoring the implementation of statements prepared in response to an inspection report of an at risk school. The regulations may also provide for further inspections by the chief inspector.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Midnight
Baroness Brigstocke Baroness Brigstocke moved Amendment No. 334A:
Page 223, line 20, at end insert:
("(aa) at the end of paragraph (6) there is added—
"(c) headteacher and chairman of governing bodies shall be invited to the meeting described in paragraph (6) above" ").
The noble Baroness said: There is a problem with the wording in this amendment. I believe it should read:
"at the end of paragraph (6) there is added—
"(c) headteacher and chairman of the governing body shall be invited to the meeting described in paragraph
1520
(6) above".
As with my earlier group of amendments, this amendment seeks to ensure effective communication to enable best practice in schools. When the inspection team is talking to the parents, the chairman of governors and the head teacher need to hear what is being said. They need to hear; they do not need necessarily to speak at that meeting.
Hearsay is dangerous. If the parents seriously criticise the school, the chairman of the governing body and the head teacher have got to hear the accusations eventually. It is surely preferable for them to hear the actual words and not a second-hand version.
I know that it could be argued that parents might be inhibited. If they felt strongly enough and knew that they were not going to be challenged in any way at the meeting, I believe that they would speak out. It is, however, possible that parents could be misinformed. I have known plenty of examples where children have, in self-defence, maligned a teacher and either told a fib or a whopping lie. There must be proper safeguards for parents. But governors and head teachers are also entitled to fair treatment and should at least be given a chance to hear what it is that they are accused of.
Finally, if the chairman of governors and the head teacher are there at the meeting between the parents and the inspection team to hear complaints, they are then in a position to take steps without delay to put right the cause of the complaints, if those complaints are indeed well founded. The aim must be, as I have said before, to achieve the most effective, fair and just
My noble friend the Minister was sympathetic to my earlier amendments. I trust that her sympathy will extend to this amendment also.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I must admit that I am a little confused. My impression was that if the previous amendment had been accepted, we should not be talking to Amendment No. 334A. Perhaps the Chairman could give us some guidance.
Viscount Astor: I believe that what the noble Lord says is correct. But the Committee may find it helpful if my noble friend the Minister quickly gave her reply to the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I too wanted to say something on the amendment. I must admit that I have here a brief which is supportive of the amendment as put forward, but from my experience of working as a governor and knowing plenty of people who have children at primary schools, I do not agree with the purpose of the amendment. I think that parents will be inhibited from speaking out frankly if the head teachers and the governors are there. I can think of several schools in my locality which I know well where I know the parents and know that they would be inhibited. So I am afraid that, although I appreciate exactly the thinking behind her amendment, from my personal experience I do not believe that it is well founded.
Baroness Blatch: First of all, perhaps I may say that I am incredibly impressed by the patience of my noble

1521
friend who has sat all day to put this one amendment so late. I also say to her that I realise why we are talking to this amendment out of that grouping, separately. It is rather different from the other amendments in the group. I can confirm to my noble friend that I am doing all that I can to meet her wishes in respect of the other amendments.
This is a happy note on which to reach the end of the Committee stage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Some of us who are in public life, either in local authorities or in this illustrious Chamber, tend to forget how intimidating even a classroom teacher can be. A head of department or a head teacher can be very intimidating. For that reason it is important that parents are given an uninhibited opportunity to say simply what they think about the school and whether they have any anxieties.
The Government consider it important that parents with registered pupils at the school, including any parents who are staff or governors, should have the opportunity to meet the inspection team, in the absence of those with direct responsibility for the school. The purpose of the meeting is not to pursue individual complaints or to pursue a vendetta against any particular member of staff but to give inspectors a general impression of how parents perceive the school and whether they have any worries. This is consistent with the Parents' Charter's promise to give parents more information about their schools and to involve them more in the educational process.
There will be plenty of opportunity for the inspection team to meet governors and staff during the inspection and that, together with the meeting with parents, will provide background to the team's in-depth observation of all aspects of the school. The important point is that registered inspectors will be required to report not on what they are told, but on what they find in a school. Reports will be produced in accordance with HMCI's published framework of inspection which will ensure a consistent standard is applied across the country. Registered inspectors will, in addition, report their findings to governors at the end of the inspection and before the report is published.
A registered inspector will have a substantial amount of evidence before him when reporting on a school's achievements. Professor Sutherland has made it clear that there will be proper professional safeguards. That underlies my noble friend's anxiety. The revised Framework for the Inspection of Schools will contain a code of conduct for the registered inspector governing, for example, their relationships with parents and with the school's staff. The Handbook for Inspection of Schools will contain specific guidance to the registered inspector on the conduct of the parents meeting. It will include such matters as the ground rules for discussion, which will among other things make the naming of staff or pupils inadmissible, and advice on how the registered inspector should interpret the evidence he or she obtains from such meetings. A registered inspector would be unlikely to give undue weight to possibly malicious criticisms voiced at a meeting where teaching staff are unable to respond. It is certainly not
1522
our aim in providing for a meeting solely between parents and a registered inspector to drive a wedge between staff and parents. We think that the meeting is much more likely to provide positive feedback and, in some cases, improve communication between school and parents.
I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that, even given her underlying worries, the professional concerns of staff are safeguarded.
Baroness Brigstocke: I thank my noble friend very much for that very full reply, particularly at this late hour. She has given me some comfort. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 334B:
Page 224, line 5, at end insert:
("The Charities Act 1993 In Schedule 2 to the Charities Act 1993 (exempt charities) after paragraph (d) there is inserted—
"(da) the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority;".).
The noble Viscount said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 266C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 334C to 334F:
Page 224, line 10, leave out ("the case of a governing body of a grant-maintained school") and insert ("relation to a grant-maintained school the governing body of which were").
Page 224, line 15, leave out from ("Chapter") to end of line 16 and insert ("the instrument and articles so made—

(a) shall have effect as if they contained such modifications as may be required by an order under section 276 of this Act, and

(b) shall (as so modified) have effect as if made under and in accordance with Part II of this Act.").

Page 224, line 22, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("required by an order under section 276 of this Act").
Page 224, line 24, leave out ("An order under section 276 of this Act") and insert ("A commencement order").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 334C to 334F. These are technical amendments to Schedule 17 of the Bill which makes transitional provisions for certain provisions in the Bill. The first three amendments relate to provisions to deal with instruments and articles of governance at the schools incorporated under the ERA. The first is purely a drafting amendment. The second two deal with making of instruments and articles for schools. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 334G and 334H:
Page 224, line 25, after ("code") insert ("or the transitory grants code for Wales").
Page 224, line 36, leave out from ("paragraph") to end of line 37 and insert:

(""commencement order" means, in relation to England, an order under section 276 of this Act and, in relation to Wales, an order under section 3 of this Act,

"the old grants code" means sections 79 and 80 of the Education Reform Act 1988 as they apply in relation to England, and

1523

"the transitory grants code for Wales" means sections 81 to 86 of this Act.").

The noble Viscount said: The amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 334C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 334J:
Page 224, line 37, at end insert: ("Education Committees etc and Members of those Committees
—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) below applies to—

(a) any education committee established in accordance with paragraph 1 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1944, and

(b) any sub-committee of any such committee appointed in accordance with paragraph 10 of that Part,

which is in existence immediately before the commencement of section 266 of this Act.
(2) Any committee or sub-committee to which this sub-paragraph applies shall, for the purposes of any enactment, be treated as if it had been—

(a) appointed at the commencement of that section—

(i) in the case of a committee, by the local authority, or

(ii) in the case of a sub-committee, by the committee appointed by the authority,
in accordance with section 102(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, and

(b) so appointed exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such of the authority's functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority or, as the case may be, the committee's functions with respect to education.

(3) Sub-paragraph (4) below applies to any person who is immediately before the commencement of section 266 of this Act a member of an education committee or sub-committee of such a committee appointed for a term of office.
(4) Any person to whom this sub-paragraph applies shall, for the purposes of any enactment, be treated—

(a) as if he had been appointed at the commencement of that section as a member of a committee or sub-committee appointed as mentioned in subparagraph (2) above for the residue of that term, and

(b) if he was a member of an education committee or sub-committee by virtue of directions given by the Secretary of State under paragraph 5A of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1944, as if he had been appointed at the commencement of that section as a member of a committee or sub-committee appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above by virtue of directions given by the Secretary of State under section [Power of Secretary of State to direct appointment of members of committees] of this Act.").

The noble Viscount said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 335 to 337B:
Page 225, column 3, leave out line 22.
Page 225, column 3, line 46, leave out ("13").
Page 227, column 3, line 15, at end insert:
("In section 16(1), "any county school or" and the words following "the new site".").
Page 227, column 3, line 16, at end insert:
("In section 50(1) "by them". In paragraph (a) of the proviso to section 52(1), "by the authority".").
Page 227, column 3, line 16, at end insert:
Section 56.").
Page 227, line 32, at end insert:

("1948 c. 40.

The Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948.

In the First Schedule, the entry relating to section 56 of the Education Act 1944.").

Page 227, column 3, line 33, at beginning insert:
("Section 6(2) (a) (iii).").
Page 227, column 3, line 40, leave out ("paragraph 4") and insert ("paragraphs 1 and 4").
Page 227, line 46, at end insert:

("1972 c. 70.

The Local Government Act 1972

Section 101(9) (a).").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 335 was spoken to with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 335 to 337B.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 338 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 338A:
Page 228, column 3, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert:
("In paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, in subparagraph (3) "or of any education committee of the authority" in each place where it occurs and in sub-paragraph (4) "or of any education committee of the authority" and "by more than one".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 339 and 339A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 339B to 341B:
Page 228, column 3, line 48, at beginning insert:
("In section 5(4) (b) the words after "by the authority". In section 38, in subsection (4) (c) the words after "to the post" and, in subsection (6) (b), "or (4) (c) (ii)".").
Page 228, column 3, line 55, at end insert:
("In Schedule 2, in paragraph 7(7) the words after "by the authority".").
Page 229, line 1, at end insert:

("1988 c. 9.

The Local Section Government Act 1988

Section 1(1) (j). In Schedule 2, the words from "A joint education committee" to "1944".").

Page 229, column 3, line 17, at end insert:
("In section III, subsection (4) and, in subsection (5) (b), "provided under arrangements made by the authority".").
Page 229, column 3, line 17, at end insert:
("In section 220(2), the word "and" immediately following paragraph (bb).").
Page 229, line 29, at end insert:

("1989 c. 42.

The Local Government and Housing Act 1989

In section 13, subsections (2) (b) and (6). In paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, in sub-paragraph (1) the definition of "education committee" and, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "ordinary committee", "education committee, their" and in sub-paragraph (2), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "ordinary committee", "education committee or". In Schedule 11, paragraph 4.").

Page 229, column 3, line 30, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs 6 and").
Page 229, line 31, at end insert:

("1993 c.

The Charities Act 1993.

In Schedule 2, paragraphs (e) and (g).").

Lord Judd: This brings us to a total of 258 government amendments laid during the deliberations on the Bill in this House alone. Of the total, one was even laid after the schedule it was to have amended had already been considered. Three were withdrawn, two on Clause 1 and one because the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford had not had sufficient
1526
notice. The Bill has 276 clauses. The average rate of amendment by Ministers is therefore virtually one per clause.
Rushed, ill-considered, hastily drafted legislation, after little, sometimes no, consultation, cannot make for good government. We shall need to take the Report stage of our proceedings very seriously indeed.
Earl Russell: It might perhaps underline the point if I could ask whether it was the intention of the noble Baroness to move Amendment No. 340 which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor: There is a misprint on the Marshalled List. That amendment should be in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 342 not moved.]
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Citibank International Bill [H.L.] (formerly Citibank Europe Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past midnight.

  CATTLE EAR-TAGS
  CATTLE EAR-TAGS
  BEEF SPECIAL PREMIUM SCHEME: PURPOSES
  BEEF SPECIAL PREMIUM SCHEME: PURPOSES
  BEEF SPECIAL PREMIUM SCHEME: FORMS
  BEEF SPECIAL PREMIUM SCHEME: FORMS
  LONDON'S HEALTH SERVICE
  LONDON'S HEALTH SERVICE
  TOXICOLOGY SERVICES
  TOXICOLOGY SERVICES
  BRITISH COAL PENSION FUND SURPLUS
  BRITISH COAL PENSION FUND SURPLUS
  FALKLANDS CAMPAIGN: COST
  FALKLANDS CAMPAIGN: COST
  GULF WAR: COSTS AND CLAIMS
  GULF WAR: COSTS AND CLAIMS
  UN OPERATIONS: UK PARTICIPATION
  UN OPERATIONS: UK PARTICIPATION
  N.I.: IMPACT OF VAT ON DOMESTIC FUEL
  N.I.: IMPACT OF VAT ON DOMESTIC FUEL
  ANGOLA AND MOZAMBIQUE
  ANGOLA AND MOZAMBIQUE
  SOUTH AFRICA: UK AID
  SOUTH AFRICA: UK AID
  GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT: RESPONSIBILITY
  GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT: RESPONSIBILITY
  MASSAWA: REPAIR WORK
  MASSAWA: REPAIR WORK
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: SOLE COMPETENCE
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: SOLE COMPETENCE
  BELIZE: UK GARRISON
  BELIZE: UK GARRISON
  TOXICOLOGY AND BACTERIOLOGY
  TOXICOLOGY AND BACTERIOLOGY