Sitting of 6 July 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords]
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  Considered; amendments agreed to.
  To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Water
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the new water authority board members will be councillors.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): There will be a significant number of elected councillors among the membership of the new water and sewerage authorities. Further decisions on appointments have not yet been taken.
    Mr. Dunnachie: I thank the Minister for his reply. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), wrote the Minister a letter some time ago expressing the anxieties of Eastwood district council about the lack of elected membership on the governing bodies of the water boards. The Minister's reply was terse, to say the least. He told the Under-Secretary of State that it would be wrong to put elected members in a position of power on the water boards in case they went against Government policy, inasmuch as the Minister thought that elected members were not the representatives of the people and that local people should be represented on the boards by those with money, companies and so forth—not ordinary elected members, but lackeys whom the Minister would pick—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that a question will come my way soon, instead of a statement. Perhaps the Minister can attempt an answer.
    Sir Hector Monro: I think that the hon. Gentleman was paraphrasing a rather good letter. I can assure the House, as I have done before, both in the Chamber and in Committee, that there will be a significant number of local elected councillors on the water authorities. They will be there for their blend of skills and experience and perhaps because of their previous work with water authorities and local
    300
    authorities. After we have consulted and the Bill has been enacted, I think that Opposition Members will be very pleased with the results.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: For the benefit of Opposition Members, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to say clearly and slowly, if possible in words of one syllable, that under his plans water will not be privatised but will remain in public hands, that that is enshrined in law, that there can be no disconnections, and that local elected councillors will be on the boards? Will he also confirm that, regardless of what system is in place, water bills in Scotland will have to rise, due to the investment required?
    Sir Hector Monro: Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. I thank my hon. Friend very much for putting his question so concisely.
    Madam Speaker: A splendid response.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: What guarantee can the Minister give that the large rural areas of Scotland will be represented on the water quangos? For example, will Orkney and Shetland have any representation in the Northern water area, will Argyll and Bute have any in the Western area, and will Dumfries and Galloway have any in the Eastern area? There is a real anxiety that some of the smaller unitary authorities could end up with no representation at all.
    Sir Hector Monro: There is always anxiety in any world where change is envisaged. I assure the hon. Lady that this change will be very much for the better. All areas will have reasonable representation, not only on the water authorities, but on the councils that we are appointing.
    Mr. Salmond: Has the Minister had time to look at the Which? report on English private water companies, which states that while costs and profits of water companies south of the border have increased by 70 per cent. water costs to consumers have doubled? Indeed, it says that the only things rising faster than the exorbitant cost of water south of the border are the extravagant salaries of the chief executives of water companies. Given the disaster that is unfolding south of the border, is that not an argument for keeping Scottish water under local democratic control?
    Sir Hector Monro: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. On the second part, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, having read the Committee's deliberations, that the authorities that we have set up are public authorities, the members of which are appointed by the Secretary of State and are democratically responsible to him. I think that all will be well and that we shall get on with doing what is required—improving the water and sewerage services in Scotland as soon as possible.
    Mr. George Robertson: The Minister will recall that in March this year, 97 per cent. of the people of Strathclyde region rejected the Government's proposals for putting water into the hands of quangos. Last Thursday, more than 97 per cent. of the people of Monklands, East rejected the Government and their policies as well, giving the Government their worst election result in any parliamentary by-election or election since 1918 when the universal franchise came in. Does the Minister realise that one of the factors contributing to that is the Government's Marie

    301
    Antoinette approach to Scottish water? The people of Scotland are clearly saying to the Government that they want water in the hands of local elected people and that unless the Government do that they will continue to be humiliated and punished by the people whom they deny.
    Sir Hector Monro: Even by the hon. Gentleman's own standards, that is about as far away from the question on the Order Paper as he could possibly get. After all that has happened in the past three weeks, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have raised the subject of Monklands at all. I should have thought that he would go into purdah and shut up for the next couple of years, and see just how much work his party has to do to bring democratic government back into local government in Scotland.

    Outdoor Education Centres
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding safety at outdoor education centres.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations on safety at outdoor education centres. He is, however, fully aware of the action that has followed the canoeing tragedy in Lyme Bay, Dorset. In particular, the Government's response to that incident—including new guidance on safety at outdoor activity centres—extends to Scotland.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that every year thousands of children in Scotland attend outdoor education centres and undertake potentially hazardous activities? What guidelines have been given to schools in Scotland and what measures have been taken to accredit and inspect the centres to ensure that children's lives are not put at risk?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I can confirm that guidance is likely to be published in the late summer and is intended to supplement the existing guidance, "Safety in Outdoor Education," which was published in 1989.
    The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that there are reports this morning that Grampian regional council has issued its own guidance to keep it up to date. I am very pleased that it has done that, and I am sure that it will be of value to schools in the region. I hope that other local authorities will do that as well. We do not want an excess of guidance, but we will ensure that the best possible guidance is put in place. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), is pursuing a campaign of safety in relation to mountaineering and hill and mountain safety.

    Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the extra cost to be incurred by Government sources as a result of alterations in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill between the Bill as presented at First Reading and its current state.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The Government have
    302
    incurred no significant costs as a result of alterations made to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill since its introduction.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the Rowntree study, which showed that the economies of scale in education would be disaggregated, are the Government quite certain that there will be no increase in service delivery costs?
    Mr. Stewart: I have made the figures absolutely clear, and the changes that the Government have made since the introduction have been widely welcomed. I quote the views of West Lothian district council in the hon. Gentleman's constituency:
    "The new structure of local government must combine democracy and efficiency. A new West Lothian Council would strike exactly the right balance. It would also lend itself to a quick and economical transition, thus maintaining the continuity of service which is vital to both citizens, business and partner organisations."
    It was to those representations that the Government rightly listened.
    Mr. Bates: What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the additional savings that will result from the Bill's provision for the abolition of Monklands district council? In particular, has he received any representations from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), who stated in The Herald on 30 June that he had seen figures which proved the existence of corruption? Does my hon. Friend agree that if those figures were made available to him we could arrange an inquiry into the matter of corruption, which seems to be gaining all-party recognition?
    Mr. Stewart: If anyone has evidence that Monklands district council—or any other local authority in Scotland—is in breach of its statutory responsibilities, of course the Government will look into it. I have received no representations from Opposition Members seeking a meeting, but if the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) or the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) wishes to seek a joint meeting with me, I have no doubt that such a meeting would be an entertaining and interesting occasion.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Government now do the decent thing and abandon their expensive and unwanted carve-up of Scottish local government? Would it not show absolute contempt for the wishes of the people of Scotland if a Tory Government proceeded with such gerrymandering plans, especially after the Tories were so resoundingly defeated in the recent regional elections and were virtually annihilated in the Monklands by-election?
    Mr. Stewart: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consult his own district council, Falkirk, which I understand is very content with the Government's proposals.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that any extra costs resulting from the Bill and associated with the abolition of Monklands district council will be money well spent? Do not the revelations of corruption, nepotism and dubious job practices in Monklands during the recent by-election vindicate Conservative Members who have pointed to the corruption in that council? How many other Labour councils in Scotland are getting up to similar shenanigans?
    Mr. Stewart: The short answer is that I do not know. The Scottish Office cannot take action simply because a

    303
    local authority may indulge in practices that others would criticise; we can act only if a council is in breach of its statutory responsibilities.
    Sir David Steel: To return to the main question, can the Minister tell us whether he included in his calculation of the cost of the local government changes the cost of providing in every centre of population the all-purpose offices that will be necessary in areas such as the Borders if local government is to continue to have any meaning at all?
    Mr. Stewart: I certainly hope that there will not be huge all-purpose offices in the centres of all the new local authorities—for the very good reason that at the centre of our local government proposals is an emphasis on decentralisation of facilities rather than centralisation. Of course some costs may be incurred, but there will also be savings. The figures published by the Government take no account, for instance, of receipts from property sales.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that he has received a deputation and a request from members and employees of Kyle and Carrick district council? This is the real scandal in Scottish local government. The authority is now re-tendering a contract for cleansing and refuse collection which still had three weeks to run, and it has been discovered that the provost of Kyle and Carrick had five secret meetings with a Spanish contracting company before making the decision. That is the kind of corruption that is taking place in Tory-controlled Kyle and Carrick. The Minister has received a request for an inquiry: when will he conduct one?
    Mr. Stewart: I must say that that remark was pretty racist from a party that is supposed to be "communautaire". Did not the favourite for the leadership of the Opposition recently say that it was communautaire? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question as soon as hon. Members give me an opportunity to do so.
    I met the delegation led by the hon. Gentleman, and I listened courteously and carefully to the points that were made. I told the hon. Gentleman that, prior to that meeting, we had had no evidence whatever of wrongdoing by Kyle and Carrick district council, but that I would examine the evidence which the hon. Gentleman put to me and write to him. That remains the position.
    Mr. McLeish: While the Minister sits back and enjoys his hypocrisy and complacency—
    Madam Speaker: Order. There is no hypocrisy in this House. Will the hon. Gentleman rephrase what he has just said?
    Mr. McLeish: While the Minister sits back and enjoys his complacency over allegations of corruption, does he accept that the time scale for the implementation of reorganisation proposals is simply a shambles? Does he accept that if he proceeds with the timetable services will be destroyed, jobs will be lost and local government will lose a great deal that it has built up over the past 30 years? In view of the result in Monklands last week, is there not some political merit for the Tories in abandoning the elections next year and returning to the real problems facing local government? Why does the Minister not
    304
    announce today that there will be a year's delay? Better still, why does he not scrap such crazy, ill-conceived proposals?
    Mr. Stewart: The timetable is almost the same as for the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland, when some difficulties arose during that period—notably a coal strike and a general election, neither of which we envisage happening between now and the elections for the shadow authorities next year. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consult Fife regional council—his own Labour-controlled council—which estimates that the Government's proposals will save £68 million over 15 years. Moreover, it has made no representations to the Government suggesting that it is anything other than happy with the proposals.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the evasive nature of the Minister's answers, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Scottish Nuclear
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish Nuclear on its expansion proposals for nuclear electricity generating capacity.
    Mr. Stewart: As Scottish Nuclear has no plans to expand its nuclear generating capacity, my right hon. Friend has naturally not discussed the subject with it.
    Mr. Clarke: Will the Minister take it from me that moves are afoot to expand the nuclear industry? I am surprised at the answer that I have just received. Does he recognise that more than 50 per cent. of the electricity industry's generating capacity in Scotland is through nuclear power, which is extremely inefficient as it costs Scottish people more than alternative forms of energy? When he meets Scottish Nuclear about its expansion, will he recognise the fact that a question mark hangs over environmental arguments and the decommissioning of Hunterston A before he grants permission for any type of expansion? A moratorium would be better. I hope that the Minister will join me in ensuring that the people of Scotland are not penalised further because of the folly of nuclear power in their area.
    Mr. Stewart: A large number of people, not just on this side of the House, would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's views. There are no plans for an expansion of nuclear-generated capacity. There is interest in replacement of Hunterston B, but that is a different matter. I should make it clear that the Government are committed to the nuclear option, provided that it can prove economic. One of Scotland's great benefits is the variety of sources of supply to its electricity generation industry.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that Scottish Nuclear is built on success in electricity generation? Does he also agree that, given the restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, an adequate and cost-effective supply of energy resources in Scotland will depend largely on the nuclear resource if Scotland's economic future is to be secure?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the importance of nuclear energy for Scottish industry and Scottish consumers. Scottish Nuclear Ltd. plans to increase its output by 18 per cent. by 1998 and to

    305
    control costs—wholly consistently with safety, of course. The contribution that SNL has made to electricity generation is one of which all Scotland should be proud.
    Mr. Hood: The Minister will know that thousands of Scottish children travel from school to visit nuclear power station exhibition centres, and they do so in minibuses and coaches. When do the Government intend to bring forward legislation to make seat belts compulsory to protect our children—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is on totally the wrong question. In that case, we shall now move on.

    Unemployment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the change in the numbers unemployed in Scotland since December 1992.
    Mr. Stewart: Since December 1992, the number of seasonally adjusted unemployed in Scotland has fallen by 17,100.
    Mr. Marshall: As unemployment throughout the European Community has increased by 1.5 million during that time, will my hon. Friend consider holding a seminar at one of Scotland's ancient universities—preferably the university of St. Andrews—at which he could point out that deregulation and modern labour relations create jobs while a minimum wage and the social chapter destroy jobs?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the United Kingdom is clearly coming out of the recession ahead of most of the rest of the European Community. As regards seminars, I recently addressed a seminar in Glasgow on the European Community's White Paper, where I made precisely some of the valid points that my hon. Friend has mentioned about Britain's economic success.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree with me that, like the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), he is misleading the Scottish people and misleading the House by giving those figures? Does he also agree that the 249,000 figure of December 1992 is the peak figure, although it is 17,100 lower? Why did he not take the August 1990 figure of 197,000, which is the lowest figure? Does he agree that the figure is 34,700 higher than that?
    Hon. Members: Now answer that.
    Mr. Stewart: The short answer is that the question was:
    "what is the change in the numbers unemployed in Scotland since December 1992",
    and I gave the figure in answer to that question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, and all hon. Members, will recognise that unemployment in Scotland is falling, and will continue to fall. [Interruption.] Opposition Members obviously do not like the fact that unemployment is falling. I am disappointed that they take such a completely negative attitude to the evidence of Scotland's economic success.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that we still have very low strike rates in the United Kingdom? Does he believe that Scottish unemployment is decreasing because the Scottish work force in the main refused to strike? Will he, therefore, make it clear to hon.
    306
    Members in all parts of the House that the condoning of strike action, from wherever it comes, should be condemned from all parts of the House?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend. All the evidence from inward investment work clearly shows the importance that firms from north America and the far east attach to Scotland's excellent industrial relations. We have a superb and skilled work force in Scotland, as our inward investment record demonstrates.
    Mr. Donohoe: How many changes have there been to the calculations on unemployment figures since the Government came to power in 1979? If the Minister was able to calculate the figures on the basis that he is suggesting from 1992, could he confirm that the total would be about double that which he suggests?
    Mr. Stewart: What I do know is that all the Labour Governments in history have ended up with unemployment higher at the end of their period in office than at the beginning. The hon. Gentleman clearly will not face up to the fact that unemployment in Scotland, which of course is high, is below that of the United Kingdom average for the first time since the 1920s. Unemployment there is falling at a time when it is not falling in the rest of the European Community.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister agree that adult training is crucial to overcoming unemployment? Why are no adult training places available in Angus and Dundee? Why are existing places under threat? Why is adult training not a priority for the Government?
    Mr. Stewart: Of course, places are available. There is a further education college in Dundee. Adult training is a priority of the Government, which is why we are giving £200 million to the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise network to provide the resources for adult training in Scotland.

    Pollution, Clyde Estuary
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to arrange for the clearing up of pollution on the foreshores of the Clyde estuary.
    Sir Hector Monro: Responsibility for cleaning beaches lies with district or islands councils.
    Mr. Graham: Will the Minister borrow a small canoe and paddle up the River Clyde to see the pollution in the water and the dereliction? He will come to the Erskine bridge. A recent paper stated that the bridge is crumbling and my constituents are worried that it may not be safe. Will the Minister give the House and my constituents an assurance that the bridge will be made safe? Will he make a public announcement on the present state of the bridge?
    Sir Hector Monro: I would rather paddle down the river than up it. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, but it is far removed from my sphere of responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who is responsible for the bridge and for roads in Scotland, will have heard the exchange, and I am sure that if action needs to be taken, he will take it.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Minister is aware that chromium waste dumping sites in Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Toryglen pollute water courses that flow into the River

    307
    Clyde, and that contamination ends up in the Clyde estuary. The Secretary of State has said that no resources will be made available to clear up those contaminated waste sites in my constituency. Bearing in mind the fact that the public health board has said that the situation is potentially risky and the fact that the Secretary of State has refused to help because he is looking for evidence, will the Minister tell me what evidence will satisfy the Secretary of State? Is he waiting for someone to die?
    Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman must not put it like that. He has had meetings with the Secretary of State and me, and he knows that discussions have taken place and are taking place on how to deal with that serious issue. There is no doubt that action will have to be taken, whether through the enterprise company, the region or the district—the problem must be resolved. I assure him that the Scottish Office will play a full part in trying to find the right solution.

    Community Care
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to conduct a review of community care in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: We continually monitor and review the progress of the operation of community care in Scotland. A major evaluation and research project is being undertaken at Stirling university.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the great anguish and anxiety caused when trusts publish business plans stating how many people are to be discharged into the community and which hostels are to be closed, but make no mention of how the care is to be provided?
    Would not it be more sensible to publish a patient plan in conjunction with the authorities that will provide patient care and, in tandem, produce a business plan showing how the costs of the whole package will be met? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that until that is done and until there is a sensible way of planning and operating community care, there should be no hospital closures in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about these matters, which he raised in the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday. First, a business plan is an essential starting point. Secondly, like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that close co-operation with local authorities is very important, and we have a working party studying that. Thirdly, no hospital can be closed until after a period of public consultation and after a submission to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend and his colleagues are consulting, will they consider Meigle cottage hospital and the proposal to turn it into a day-care centre? If, on examining that proposal, it is found that its capital and revenue costs, especially transporting people long distances to the hospital, are the same as, or greater than, the cost of maintaining the hospital as it is, will my hon. Friend review the decision to close it?
    Mr. Stewart: It is no great surprise to hear my hon. Friend raise the issue of Meigle cottage hospital. I reassure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my
    308
    right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State and I will keep the position at Meigle under the closest review and scrutiny.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that his avowed concern for these matters is somewhat less than convincing because earlier this year he admitted that he did not know the number of people paying the full cost of accommodation in residential care and nursing homes, or how many people had sold their homes to meet the charges for their residential care? Is the hon. Gentleman any better informed now?
    Will the Minister, before it is too late, consider the impact of the break-up of the social work departments on this and other aspects of community care? It is a consequence of his tearing apart of Scottish local authorities to meet the Government's narrow political ends.
    Mr. Stewart: We regularly collect and publish a whole range of statistics on community care as part of the monitoring process. Inspections are carried out by the social work services inspectorate and the reviews by the NHS management executive.
    I do not for a moment accept the hon. Lady's views on the consequences of local government reform. A single-tier system will be a great deal more sensible. There are enormous advantages in, for example, having social work and housing services in the same authority.
    Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that the principle of care in the community is commendable? Does he further agree that to keep the elderly and mentally sick in normal conditions in the community for as long as possible is better than institutionalising them and putting them in hospital? Will my hon. Friend join me in commending Grampian health care trust on its business plan, although it is only an outline plan? It not only includes, sadly, proposals to close some hospitals, but—this is something that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) did not mention—plans for significant capital expenditure on new hospital provision for those who have to remain in hospital, so that they can have even better care.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. The trust's plan includes considerable capital expenditure. The objective is not simply to maintain, but to improve the standards of patient care.

    Housing
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss disposal of housing stock.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already issued guidance to Scottish Homes on the procedure for the disposal of housing stock. He has no plans to meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss that further.
    Mr. McKelvey: You will be as appalled as I am by that answer, Madam Speaker, when you hear that Scottish Homes held a meeting last week and invited only selected tenants to discuss the disposal of the property. Democratically elected members of tenants associations, residents associations and district councils, and even the

    309
    local Member of Parliament, were debarred from that meeting, presumably because Scottish Homes thought that they might impose some evil influence on its decision. The Minister will be surprised to hear that those selected tenants unanimously rejected the association that Scottish Homes hoped they would adopt and said that they wanted unfettered—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now making a statement, which is quite unfair. There are many questions on the Order Paper and unless questions and answers are brisk, many Scottish Members will be disappointed. I am asking for a direct question and a brisk answer.
    Mr. McKelvey: I take the point, Madam Speaker, but I am seriously concerned about this business. Will the Minister, therefore, direct Scottish Homes to give all Scottish tenants a free and unfettered choice in their future landlords?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: At the end of the day, if a majority of tenants wish to remain in the public sector, they will have the opportunity to do so through the ballot paper and by voting to remain with Scottish Homes. As for the meeting that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I understand that owner-occupiers were not dealt with in exactly the same way as tenants. Owner-occupiers have an interest in the proposed new landlords and they are entitled to attend public meetings. Representatives of a residents association, representing tenants and owner-occupiers, would have access to the tenants' independent adviser. Unlike tenants, an owner-occupier will not be entitled to vote in the ballot as a tenant because a home owner's landlord is himself or herself.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give me one good reason why tenants of Scottish Homes in my constituency who wish to become tenants of the local authority should be prevented from doing so?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The current arrangements do not preclude a local authority from presenting proposals to acquire Scottish Homes stock. In special circumstances, that option can be put forward, as it was in the case of Berwickshire. Those special circumstances would include, first, the number of properties involved; secondly, their location; and, thirdly, the percentage of houses already held by the local authority. In Kilmarnock and Loudoun, some 44 per cent. of houses are in the public sector, which is substantially higher than the national average. It is our aim to have more choice and diversity in housing stock.

    Konver Initiative
    Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Konver initiative; and what funding he proposes to make available to local authorities to progress economic development.
    Mr. Stewart: Scotland received more than £1.7 million from the first Konver initiative, which ran as a one-year programme in 1993. The European Commission is in the process of issuing guidelines for the next round of Community initiatives, including a second Konver programme.
    Ms Squire: Does the Minister agree that the Government should introduce a national strategy for defence diversification if any progress is to be made in economic development in areas that depend heavily on defence-related activities, such as Fife, which has the highest unemployment rate in Scotland and where we have lost 4,000 jobs at Rosyth in the past three years? Does he further agree that no EC initiative could replace the 8,000 jobs that depend on Rosyth's future? Will he say clearly today that he supports Rosyth and will he link his future to that of the naval base and to those 8,000 jobs?
    Mr. Stewart: On the second question, the hon. Lady knows that no decision has been made on the future of the naval base, as well as the other establishments being reviewed under "Front Line First". She will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is to make a statement before the House rises for the summer recess.
    As for the hon. Lady's main question on a defence initiative, we do have a Scottish defence initiative which has been implemented in particular by two local enterprise companies—Fife Enterprise and the Glasgow Development Agency. They have developed several programmes to reduce the impact of defence reductions, aimed mainly at diversification and support for redundant workers. For example, under the new product development programme they have assisted more than 850 people from more than 50 companies. I assure the hon. Lady—indeed, she may know this from her own contacts—that Fife Enterprise has close relationships with important key companies in the sector and is developing a range of specific initiatives.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the Locate in Scotland programme, which has attracted firms such as Hoover, Motorola and Mitsubishi. But does he agree that the distance between Scotland and the centre of gravity of Europe puts it at a great disadvantage? Is it not therefore even more amazing that freight transport from Scotland to the rest of Europe is being disrupted today by the rail strike—[interruption.]—and is it not even more surprising that the Opposition Front Bench—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate what he says more to the original question. Will the Minister answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question?
    Mr. Stewart rose—
    Mr. McLeish: Does he remember it?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, I remember it. My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of transport links between Scotland and Europe. That is why the Eurofreight terminal in Mossend is important, as is the open skies policy pursued by the Government. My hon. Friend is also right to say that Scotland is an extremely attractive location for multinational companies, which make their decisions wholly objectively. The recent figures from Locate in Scotland amply prove that.
    Dr. Reid: In keeping with the spirit of the times, would any of the candidates at the hustings for the post of Secretary of State for Scotland like to dissociate himself from the treacherous betrayal of Rosyth by the two previous Secretaries of State? The present Secretary of State—the incumbent for the time being—has failed to lift

    311
    a finger for Rosyth, and the previous Secretary of State, now Secretary of State for Defence, has physically presided over the impending closure of Rosyth? Why should anyone in Rosyth or in the rest of Scotland who is interested in jobs or in the defence of Scotland and the rest of Britain ever trust whoever succeeds the present incumbent?
    Mr. Stewart: Such personal attacks are unbecoming to the hon. Gentleman and are wholly without foundation. I suggest that he awaits the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is it just possible that the Secretary of State might manage to take time out from the royal pageant in Edinburgh to consider the future of Her Majesty's naval base at Rosyth, or has he completely given up the fight to save it? May I tell the Minister, who seems to be standing in for the absent Secretary of State today, that if the Government do not listen to the defence case and the human case for—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is taking some advice."] Obviously the parliamentary private secretary is giving the Minister advice. Let us hope that it is the right advice—although if I were the Minister I would rather accept advice from somebody else. If the Government do not listen to the defence case and the human case for the Rosyth naval base, and act on it, they will be roundly condemned all over the country. If they do not fight for the base, they will betray the defence of Britain and the thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on Rosyth. If they do not care about Rosyth and the people connected with it, they will be swept away—and swept away for a generation.
    Mr. Stewart: Of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland is in touch with the Secretary of State for Defence on matters affecting Scotland. Naturally, there is constant communication on such matters. I must tell Opposition Members that I find it astonishing that a party that historically has favoured cutting defence expenditure year after year, with manifesto commitment after manifesto commitment, now wants very high expenditure on defence. But of course the matter is of concern. That is why, for example, I understand that yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met a delegation from Fife accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)

    Skill Shortages
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about skill shortages in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: It is primarily for business to identify and provide the skills and associated training which it requires for success in today's global marketplace. The substantial funding given to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise enables them to assist businesses and individuals to acquire skills which will benefit the economy of Scotland.
    Mr. Worthington: The short answer is that the Minister knows nothing at all about skill shortages in Scotland, and he admits that in his parliamentary answers to my questions. He referred me to Scottish Enterprise. Scottish Enterprise wrote to me and said that it does not
    312
    collect information on skill shortages in Scotland. How can the Minister give assurances that all is well, when neither he nor Scottish Enterprise has a clue about skill shortages in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: I can tell the hon. Gentleman one figure, if he is interested. It is from the latest CBI industrial trends survey, in which the percentage of respondents quoting shortages of skilled or other labour as a constraint on investment was precisely zero.
    Mr. McLeish: Is that all the Minister has got?
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I shall tell him. May I, in particular, refer the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and other hon. Members to the clear strategy set out by Scottish Enterprise last week?
    Mr. Worthington: It does not mention skill shortages.
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman says that it does not mention skills. He obviously has not read the document. The document lays great stress on Scotland's skills and knowledge base as the greatest single source of competitive advantage. In that context, Scottish Enterprise aims to improve and develop the national training schemes which it delivers to combine development of appropriate skills with placing people in work to stimulate and help articulate demand for skills from businesses and individuals. However, of course, the bulk of training is and will continue to be carried out by companies themselves. That is the point which the hon. Gentleman appears not to appreciate.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Locate in Scotland campaign has been so successful that £5 billion has either been invested or planned to be invested and that that has created jobs for or retrained 96,000 people in Scotland? But, returning to the skill shortages, 47 per cent. of all companies from overseas who have located in Scotland conduct research and development. That is where the skills come from and it is time that Scottish Opposition Members woke up to that.
    Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I fear that he is being optimistic if he thinks that Opposition Members will ever find it in themselves to say anything good about what happens in Scotland. My hon. Friend is right to point to the success of Locate in Scotland, which had a record year last year. I pay tribute to the dedicated staff of Locate in Scotland for all their work. Again and again, potential inward investors say to us that one of the great attractions of Scotland is—[HON. MEMBERS: "The golf courses."] It is not the golf courses. One of the great attractions is the skilled and dedicated work force that is available.
    Mrs. Adams: If the Minister insists that the largest amount of training is done in industries in Scotland, will he take my word for it that Rolls-Royce in my constituency, which was one of the great trainers of apprentices in Scotland, has, in the past six years, trained six apprentice engineers, the last of whom finished a year ago? There are now no new apprenticeships at Rolls-Royce in Hillington. Will the Minister produce his evidence and tell us how many industrial apprenticeships there are in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that the number of apprentices is an appropriate measurement

    313
    of the total training undertaken by British industry? That is absurd. Employers in Britain spend more than £20 billion a year on employee training and development. The comparable figure for Scotland is about £2 billion a year. That is a measure of Scottish companies' commitment to training of all sorts.

    Fisheries
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from fishermen's organisations regarding the use of drift nets; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Hector Monro: I receive frequent representations from those concerned about the drift net fishery for salmon off the coast of north-east England. The matter of drift net fisheries was discussed at the last Fisheries Council.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend find time today to recognise the important economic contribution of angling to the rural communities of Scotland? Will he pay tribute to the fact that in Scotland drift net fishing for salmon has been almost entirely curtailed? Does he agree that the Northumberland drift net fishery, which catches almost exclusively salmon heading for Scottish rivers, is an anomaly and a disgrace, and that, after proper compensation to the netsmen, it should be stopped?
    Sir Hector Monro: I agree with my hon. Friend that salmon fishing in Scotland is of enormous importance to the community in that it brings tourism and business for hotels and shops, for example. We want to see as many anglers coming to Scotland as possible. My hon. Friend is right also to say that we banned drift net fishing many years ago around the Scottish coast. The issue of the north-east drift net fishery is complicated and it is difficult to be precise when discussing it.
    We have, as my hon. Friend knows, introduced a net limitation order and the number of licences for salmon nets has fallen by 12.7 per cent. in the past year. That is a step in the right direction. We must move on the basis of scientific advice, which is provided by the National Rivers Authority. I have my hon. Friend's point very much in mind, and I hope that one of these days we shall find the right solution.
    Mr. Macdonald: Can the Minister justify and explain why it is right for monofilament nets to be used by English fishermen in English coastal waters but not by Scottish fishermen in Scottish coastal waters?
    Sir Hector Monro: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the use of such nets has been banned in Scotland for many years. We feel that that is the right step to take, bearing in mind the conservation of fish as well as the power of catching. I believe that we have come to the right decision. It is not always accepted by fishermen, especially those on the west coast, but throughout the rest of Scotland it is generally believed that we have made the right decision.

    Governance of Scotland
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on developments relating to the governance of Scotland since the publication of "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good".
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have pressed ahead vigorously to implement the various proposals in the White Paper "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good", published last year. All the commitments have either been implemented or are well in hand.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the Minister agree that earlier supplementary questions suggest that Labour will revert to cover-up and bluster rather than taking the opportunity to clean out the Augean stables that exist in its organisation in the Greater Glasgow area? Does he further agree that the recent election result shows that there is an urgent need for the creation of a moderate, right-of-centre, pro-Union alternative to Labour, which the present Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties cannot provide, and that without such an alternative the outlook for Scottish politics is not encouraging?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's sturdy support of the Union of Great Britain. The Conservative party stood on that platform before the last general election and the number of Conservative Members increased as a result. We will continue to fight as hard as we can for the Union on every conceivable occasion. The proposals in the White Paper strengthen the Union between Scotland and England. The Standing Order changes that are proposed will be introduced early next Session after being debated and we look forward to Scotland benefiting greatly from the changes. We will bear in mind the problems in relation to Greater Glasgow that the hon. Member has mentioned.
    Mr. Connarty: Does the Minister accept that the whole concept of the White Paper has been made ludicrous in the eyes of the people of Scotland because of the growing number of quangos and the fact that the Secretary of State appoints all those people who are answerable only to him? With regard to health, the quango is answerable to a health Minister who is in another place and who has not even been elected, having been rejected by the people of Scotland. How can the people of Scotland give any credibility to any movement in "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good" until we get rid of the quangos and put elected people in responsible positions in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to ask a question of that nature when the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland served on the Scottish tourist board, the Scottish Development Agency and on a third quango relating to the police. We have considerably reduced the number of quangos throughout Britain and that is greatly to our credit. However, where there is a need for them—for example, Scottish Homes—they will, of course, survive in the public interest.
    Madam Speaker: Time is up. I call the Secretary of State for National Heritage to make his statement.
    Mr. David Clelland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I take points of order after statements.

BBC
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the BBC.
I am today publishing a White Paper with the Government's policies for the BBC's role and operations after December 1996, when its present royal charter expires. A copy of the White Paper, with a user-friendly summary, will be available in the Vote Office when I have finished speaking.
In developing these policies, we have been able to take account of advice, ideas and comments from a wide variety of sources. We had the replies from many organisations and individuals to the Government's consultation document, published in November 1992. I am grateful to everyone who wrote to us, and especially to those who arranged conferences and seminars so that the issues could be discussed. The BBC put forward its own views about its future, which provided a useful focus for public debate, and it has continued to develop its proposals, taking account of the debate about its future and changes in the world of broadcasting.
We also had the benefit of the National Heritage Select Committee's report, "The Future of the BBC", which was published in December last year. The Committee took evidence from a large number of interested parties. The White Paper includes the Government's response to the Select Committee's report and its recommendations. I have, of course, not yet had time to consider the Select Committee's report entitled "Sports Sponsorship and Television Coverage" which was published earlier today.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Member had better hurry up; he will not be here next week.
Mr. Brooke: The Select Committee's views on listed events and subscription channels have attracted a great deal of interest and the Government will take careful note of them. The White Paper acknowledges that the present restrictions are necessary and that there are arguments for strengthening them.
Our consultation document made it clear that the Government saw a continuing role for the BBC as the major public service broadcaster in the United Kingdom. But new opportunities are being created by technological developments. The Government believe that the BBC is well placed to evolve into an international multi-media enterprise, building on its present commercial services in this country and overseas. We will do all we can to encourage this process.
The responses to our consultation document showed that there is considerable public support for the wide range and diversity of the programmes and services which the BBC provides for audiences throughout the United Kingdom. However, public support for the BBC would diminish unless the corporation could demonstrate that it was cost-effective.
The BBC has, in the last few years, set in hand extensive, and often painful, measures to improve its efficiency, reducing its overheads and reorganising its operations. It is in the midst of a difficult process of modernisation, which the Government expect to continue in the years ahead. The results so far are encouraging. As
316
a broadcaster, the BBC has been able to invest over £100 million more in programmes. As an organisation, it can face the future with more flexibility and with a clearer view of how its various activities contribute to fulfilling its strategic purpose—to provide broadcast services of information, entertainment and education.
In the light of that, the Government will recommend that the BBC should be granted a new royal charter for a term of 10 years from January 1997. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] A new agreement between the Government and the BBC would govern its operations; that would replace the present licence and agreement.
The new royal charter will set out the responsibilities of the governors and the national councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The board of governors will have a strategic oversight of the BBC's activities and management. The governors and the national councils will have a special responsibility for ensuring that the BBC's services reflect the interests and needs of the public throughout the country, and for improving the BBC's accountability to its audiences and to Parliament.
Within the United Kingdom, the BBC should continue to take a lead in programme making and to provide its present television and radio services. Those will be funded from the licence fee, at least for the time being. The Select Committee, after considering all the options, concluded that the licence fee was the best available method of funding the BBC's services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The Government agree with the Committee's view. However, we propose that there should be a review of funding from the licence fee before the year 2001 in the light of technological and other changes.
The BBC will, of course, continue to be editorially independent and we shall expect it to maintain high standards in all its programming. Like other broadcasters, it will continue to have obligations to observe due impartiality on controversial issues—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: You must be joking.
Mr. Brooke:—and to ensure that programmes do not encourage crime or offend against good taste, decency or public feeling.
Overseas, the BBC will continue to broadcast World Service radio, financed by grant in aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That service has more than 130 million listeners and it is widely recognised for the reliability and accuracy of its news. That reputation is an asset of great value, both culturally and commercially. The Government consider that the BBC should be encouraged to exploit further its commercial potential.
The main changes that we propose for the future, therefore, are aimed at the development of the BBC's commercial activities, particularly its international television services. As the Select Committee recognised, a new and expanding global market is opening up for broadcasting services. Broadcasting has been transformed from a mainly national to an international activity. Moreover, broadcasting, as we have known it, is likely to become only one strand in an international media market, which will include some services and products which combine elements of different media—sound, pictures and text—allowing users to decide which they prefer.
Those developments will greatly extend the variety and choice available to everyone in this country and elsewhere.

317
The BBC is well placed to take advantage of that growing international market. It is well known internationally; it has highly skilled production staff, a large production capacity and considerable programme archives, and it has experience of operating commercially at home and abroad.
However, we should not risk licence payers' or taxpayers' money on commercial ventures. That is why we have encouraged the BBC to forge new partnerships with the private sector. In that way, it can take advantage of the private finance initiative and of the commercial expertise of its private sector partners. Understandably, the BBC is anxious that those partnerships should allow the BBC to keep editorial control over its programmes. That will help it to protect its brand name, which is recognised worldwide.
The Government believe that the BBC should compete commercially, but it must also compete fairly. The BBC has published a commitment to fair trading and it is preparing detailed guidelines. We shall want to examine those guidelines closely and ensure that they are implemented effectively. For that reason, it is essential that its services financed from the licence fee and the grant in aid should be operated separately from its commercial activities.
We are exploring with the BBC various options for the future of its transmission services. Those include privatisation, in full or in part. The BBC is preparing for an early introduction of digital broadcasting services for radio and then for television. Digital technology is more efficient in the use of the frequency spectrum and it opens up the possibility of even more services. It also offers opportunities to United Kingdom manufacturers of equipment and receivers.
The purpose of those studies, which should be completed toward the end of the year, is to seek to combine the early introduction of digital broadcasting services with the advantages of privatisation. Those include the benefits of private sector finance, since the Government do not intend to increase the licence fee to pay for introducing digital services. The Government and the BBC are clear that functions should be kept within the BBC only when there is a compelling reason for doing so.
Although we intend that the BBC should continue to be established by royal charter, a number of the Government's proposals will require legislation. When there is a suitable opportunity, we propose to repeal the provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 which prevent the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority from licensing services owned or partly owned by the BBC. In future, any commercial broadcasting services operated by the BBC would have to be licensed by the commission or the authority.
More generally, we intend to give the commission and the authority new powers to license and regulate commercial digital television and radio services. Reflecting widespread concern over standards, we also propose to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. That will provide a clearer focus for the public's complaints about broadcasting services and reduce the number of regulatory bodies.
Madam Speaker, the Government recognise that, in the BBC, the United States—[Interruption.] Madam Speaker,
318
as I directed that sentence to you, I shall read it again. The Government recognise that, in the BBC, the United Kingdom has an organisation which is a world leader. It makes more programmes than any organisation outside the United States and Japan. Over 99 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom can receive its services, and most people use them regularly. From the perspective of my Department, no other organisation provides such active and creative patronage of the arts or does so much to make major national and artistic events, and the cultural heritage of the country, accessible to everyone.
In the next 10 years, there are likely to be significant and rapid changes in broadcasting and the media generally. No one can foresee the outcome of those changes, either nationally or internationally, but it is clear that they offer huge opportunities both for the BBC and for other United Kingdom broadcasters.
The Government wish the BBC to be in a position to take advantage of these opportunities. Our policies keep a wide range of options open for the BBC's long-term future. We confirm its role as the United Kingdom's major public service broadcaster, but we are encouraging it to develop into a multi-media enterprise with international interests. That prospect is reflected in the title of our White Paper: "The Future of the BBC: Serving the Nation; Competing World-wide".
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: We thank the Secretary of State for the White Paper. We welcome it. We have had a long wait, but we are glad that it is here at last.
We have never wavered in our support for public service broadcasting, unlike the Government. We believe that for a democracy to flourish, it is crucial to uphold individuals' rights to free expression and information. We believe that the BBC's role is crucial to that—it is central. The BBC is part of our national life and its future should be guaranteed in the way that it is by the White Paper.
We are relieved that the Government have abandoned their calls for privatisation—apart from some age-old Thatcherites in odd parts of the House today. We are pleased that that has been abandoned. We also welcome the continuation of the licence fee, but would appreciate clarification on whether it will be index linked up to the review at the end of the decade.
In a sense, it is sad that the Government have simply gone for the status quo. We would have been more ambitious for the future development and growth of the BBC. We believe that there is a need to respond to the changes that have taken place in Britain since the previous royal charter, and the decline in our shared sense of national identity and community. We would have wanted more in the statement today. [Interruption.] I will give some examples.
Can the Secretary of State tell the House why, in his statement today, he has not encouraged the BBC to continue to do and emphasise what it is good at, which is good-quality programming, especially in education? Today, there was an opportunity to emphasise education, which would have given us the opportunity to have an extra teacher in every classroom and every household in the country. It is sad that that has not happened.
It would be useful if the Secretary of State could tell us why the Government have not made up their mind on the future of transmission services.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: They have.
Ms Mowlam: They have not. I have had only 20 minutes to read the paper, but it is clear that the Government have not made up their mind on transmission services. What they have done is say that there may be a future, there may not; it may be privatised, it may not.
The Opposition want a time limit from the Secretary of State for that discussion. We want a date to be put on that continued question mark over the future of transmission services. The future of the BBC depends on keeping transmission services in house. If digital is to be developed, which is what we would like, it is important for licence fee holders and the BBC to know about that decision sooner rather than later. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Yes, that was the second question.
My third question is why, apart from one throwaway line, did not the Secretary of State reassert the importance of regional programming for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions? When he talks about regionalism, we want to be sure that he means that the BBC skills base will be located in the regions and that it will not continue the march of the media to London.
The Secretary of State acknowledged the internal changes that have taken place in the BBC. Will he also acknowledge the serious morale problems that it faces as a result of the growth of short-term contracts? It would be valuable if the Secretary of State would emphasise instead the value of staff loyalty, which can result from the stability that long-term contracts bring.
The Secretary of State mentioned streamlining and accountability, and merging the Broadcasting Standards Council with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission—a merger which has already been discussed by those two groups for many months, and we welcome it. Why did he not get to the heart of the question of accountability in the BBC and deal with the appointment and remit of its governors, and with changing the royal charter to an Act of Parliament, to enable an open and transparent debate in the House?
We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the BBC's worldwide service—a decision which the BBC announced many months ago—but would like further clarification that licence fee money will be kept separate for domestic production, rather than for international growth. [Interruption.] This is the second-last question, for those hon. Members who are getting touchy.
We also want to know why the Government have waited so long before allowing the BBC to compete internationally against dominant players, such as Murdoch's News Corporation. Such folk are already trying to drive British newspapers out of the market with the present price war, and we want to be sure that British broadcasters do not face the same future.
Finally, why, when the Secretary of State just paid lip service to editorial independence, is he not at long last going to lift the ridiculed and discredited broadcasting ban, as the Irish Government have already done?
Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Lady for her initial welcoming remarks. She asked a serious of questions, which I will try to answer concisely.
320
On the licence fee, there will be a review of the formula under which it is calculated, at the time of the new charter in 1997. That will precede the review of the licence fee process, which will be before 2001.
As to the hon. Lady's observation that we have not encouraged the BBC to produce good programmes, I fear that in my statement there was a clear proclamation about the BBC's programme making and, as the hon Lady knows, its commitment to education is age-old.
As to the future of the transmission service, on which the hon. Lady asked a specific question, I said in my statement that consultants would study the matter in conjunction with the BBC, which has acknowledged the possibility that that service will be privatised fully or in part. That analysis and one of the relationship with the digital expansion programme will be conducted during the balance of the year.
On regional programmes and the skills base, the BBC has already announced the extent to which it will move programme making out of London, not only to the other countries of the United Kingdom, but to the other regions of this country.
As to the hon. Lady's question about morale, of course I acknowledge that during a period of management change as rapid as the one the BBC has undergone, there is potential for demoralisation. The management of the process, about which the hon. Lady specifically asked, is a matter for the BBC. Some Government Members were disappointed that one or two members of the Labour party were not prepared to cross picket lines the other day. Whether her question in this instance is asked on behalf of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union is something which the hon. Lady may clarify later.
As to accountability, the White Paper makes quite clear the separation of the role of the governors from the act of governance and the avoidance of their getting involved in management. The hon. Lady will know that she finds common cause in seeking an Act of Parliament with a number of my hon. Friends in this Chamber and noble Friends in another place. They might find common cause with her on grounds other than her own, but she will know that if we were to have such a debate on an Act of Parliament, it would range fairly wide.
As to separate accounting, I said that the BBC has published its fair trading commitment, and it is due to publish further details. I said in my statement that the Government will be analysing and scrutinising those closely when they come.
The hon. Lady asked why the BBC was not allowed to compete earlier. I am not sure to what she was alluding in saying that there was a restraint upon the BBC. I shall simply remark about her article in The Independent—newly minted this very day—that she addressed a number of issues which people in other places were thinking about at least two years ago.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the Irish issue. As I said in my last parliamentary answer on the subject, it is a matter which is kept under review.
Mr. Tim Renton: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement to the House today? May I congratulate him, too, on the fact that, at a time of increased speed in technological change in the broadcasting world, he has resisted the temptation of going for too much change in the BBC at this moment? Surely most

321
people in this country—at a time of vast increases in the number of television and radio channels—welcome the BBC as a sort of friendly rock of ages. They know, and like to know, that they can find Radio 4 in a familiar place on long wave.
What does my right hon. Friend have in mind when he talks about increasing commercial services on the BBC? Is he talking about encouraging more sponsorship of artistic programmes on the BBC? Surely in due course it will be necessary for the streams of revenue from commercial activities to be intermingled with the licence fee. Finally, where does he see the role of the governors as a supervisory body as being different from their present role?
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks about the stance that the Government have taken in the White Paper.
The particular expansion of commercial services is clearly intended to take place overseas, but my right hon. Friend will be aware that BBC Enterprises has become more profitable during the past year and there clearly will be some expansion in the United Kingdom.
The role of the governors is reasserted in the White Paper, but, in my response to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), I alluded to the fact that the governors are there to provide the overall regulation of the BBC, and are not intended to be involved in a detailed way in management.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he intends to renew the BBC's charter and licence fee? We want a thriving, widely appealing, impartial and vigorously independent BBC which competes in world markets and gives value for money to the licence payers.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his proposals for the cosy self-regulation of the BBC by its board of governors do not go far enough? Should not their responsibilities be given to an independent regulator for all television broadcasting which can secure its charter obligations, monitor the operation of the BBC agreement and prevent the possible misuse of the BBC's licence revenues?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman asked why we could not have a single independent regulator for all broadcasting. The Government believe that the BBC's public service broadcasting role is better regulated and overseen by a separate regulator or regulators, in the form of the governors, because it is a distinct role. We propose that that should continue.
Mr. David Evennett: Some Conservative Members feel that privatisation is very good for all industries in this country. Can my right hon. Friend tell us why the BBC should be exempt from it? I welcome his statement as far as it goes, but will he consider the whole question of commercial sponsorship for programmes, and also consider ways of improving the BBC's standards for the benefit of all licence payers? A number of my constituents are very concerned about not getting value for money.
Mr. Brooke: The Government ruled out the privatisation of the BBC, for the reason that I gave the hon.
322
Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—its public service broadcasting role. That role is better conducted in its present form, as it has been for the past 70 years.
As for my hon. Friend's more general question, it would be wrong to think that we are engaged in business as usual. What has been said about the BBC, and within the BBC, over the past two or three years has demonstrated that a major revolution has been taking place in the corporation, which the Government have applauded in terms of the results that have been secured.
As for the licence fee, I think that my hon. Friend will find that in many other countries service of such quality is not available for the price that we must pay here.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent statement. How could I do otherwise, given that practically everything that he said is contained in our unanimous Select Committee report?
May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the extension of 10 years in the BBC charter on which he has decided—in line with the Select Committee's recommendations—must be used by the BBC not simply for "business as usual", but to enable it to reassess its role and realign itself in the new contexts of media presentation and technology that will arise during the period concerned? The BBC must either dwindle into a low—audience, public broadcasting service or become what the Secretary of State has rightly said that it should become—an international multi—media enterprise.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the partnership that the BBC has already arranged with Pearsons, and its approach to the large American media company Cox Enterprises, are part of the way forward, but that the BBC needs to associate itself with a large telecommunications company such as British Telecom so that it can become a major international player in the media game? While protecting the public service ethos for which the BBC stands, such a partnership could help it to take part in the great and exciting future that is opening up for the people of this country in entertainment, education and information.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave my statement. He took a slightly selective view in saying that we had agreed with every single recommendation made by the Select Committee; but we were not an enormous distance away from it.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the BBC's use of the next 10 years, but I think that he will agree that what has happened over the past two or three years has provided it with a springboard for the kind of thinking that he envisages. I shall not comment in substance on his remark about telecommunications, but the convergence in technologies with which he is familiar will drive media organisations such as the BBC in the direction of telecommunications.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is not often that I can say that I fully support a statement made by my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that the British Broadcasting Corporation has the finest reputation in the world as a broadcasting medium? The independent television companies do not wish the British Broadcasting Corporation to be privatised and to advertise; the proposals

323
in my right hon. Friend's statement give it the greatest opportunity that it has ever been given. Although I cannot speak for the all-party media group, which I have the honour to chair, because we have not yet taken a poll, I am sure that the group would fully endorse what my right hon. Friend has told the House this afternoon.
Mr. Brooke: I do not think that I would be trespassing on the confidentiality of conversations between my hon. Friend and myself if I revealed to the House that, 10 years ago, he told me that I was then the best pairing Whip that he had known in our party. It is extremely generous of him to follow that with another compliment a decade later. More than one compliment a decade might go to my head, but I am grateful to him for what he has said, not least in his position as chairman of the all-party media group.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee found that 10 million households have no regular weekly wage; 1.2 million of them cannot—not will not—pay their television licence; and 200,000 are prosecuted?. Is he further aware that the Committee recommended that we should stop criminalising that offence and impose a fixed penalty like that imposed for not paying car tax, and that the BBC should introduce some form of hire purchase?
Four times as many women as men are prosecuted, because single parents and pensioners are at home during the day when the van usually goes round. That attitude to the poor is a major social problem, which is in danger of being shoved to the bottom of the back page of the report but about which the public are extremely concerned.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is being true to himself because he has raised that subject with me before in similar exchanges. I recognise what he says, but the fact remains that, on a daily basis, the licence fee is less than the cost of a first-class postage stamp. Many people will think that that is good value. On the pursuit of those who cannot pay the licence fee, TV Licensing and the BBC recover about twice as much in evaded fees as it costs them to engage in that recovery. There is widespread feeling in the country that the pursuit of those who are not paying their licence fee is appropriate. However, it is right that the hon. Gentleman should continue to remind us that it constitutes a real problem for some people.
Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a good case for reviewing the licence fee from time to time, not only in view of the pace of technological change but because there appears to be evidence that the BBC is overmanned and still subject to restrictive practices? There must be room for improvement there.
What pressure will be put on the BBC in future to improve its domestic as opposed to overseas service? Many of us feel that its overseas service is a model of objective reporting, far removed from the service that we sometimes find here, which appears to be much more motivated by its producers' political prejudices.
Mr. Brooke: The rate at which the licence fee rises was reviewed in 1990 and again in 1993, and the formula will be looked at again in 1996–97. In a Green Paper in 1992, we said that the licence arrangement was an anomaly, but it was felt to be the best way to conduct the financing. My right hon. Friend will have heard me say, however, that
324
before the year 2001, the process of the licence fee, not the formula, will be examined again in view of opportunities provided by new technology.
On my right hon. Friend's remarks about services abroad, as opposed to those in this country, I was not sure whether he was distinguishing between television and radio, but I am certain that his remarks will have been heard by those in the BBC.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that the attempt to introduce artificially a market system into the BBC has led to layers of bureaucracy and costing exercises that have no meaning, and has had a very bad effect on the security of those who work on the programme, and on their morale? Mark Tully and others who have great experience in the public service have drawn attention to that.
Is the Minister also aware that broadcasting is not just a matter of technology? The modern media are far more powerful than the mediaeval churches, and what we want in the next century is not just more of the same in other outlets, but access to the media and a diversity of opinion, fairly presented. I hope very much that when that comes forward, that will be a part of Government policy, because at the moment there are many people who get programmes that they may agree with or disagree with, but they do not have an opportunity to present their views to other members of the community through the broadcast media; that is the case for public service broadcasting.
Mr. Brooke: I have to remind the right hon. Gentleman, who referred to "layers of bureaucracy", that the process has released £100 million that has been able to be ploughed back into programme making. In the context of the BBC, and of those people who listen to it and watch it, that transfer of investment seems to me to be thoroughly in the interests of corporation and of audience. As to the diversity of opinion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, obviously he is right that the changes in technology will open up large new options for us in several different directions, and I should be surprised if the recommendation that he makes were not in the spirit of the times.
Sir John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear to the BBC that the extension of the charter period is not a preservation order on a grade I listed building, which may not be tampered with by developers or entrepreneurs, but merely a breathing space to enable the corporation to transport itself from the past to the future, which may not necessarily be one that will be supported by a licence fee in the far-distant future?
Mr. Brooke: I hope that my hon. Friend will find, when he analyses my statement, that nothing that I said was in contradistinction to what he has said. I referred to the options that would be available to the BBC in future, and the way that we were maintaining the flexibility of those options. I look forward to the BBC, in its special way, distinguishing itself in the next century as it has in the present one.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, although some of his friends may not like it, implicit in his statement is the fact that so—called free market forces do not deliver quality programming, and that the reason why the BBC is admired throughout the world and almost universally in this country—apart from by some strange people who attend Conservative party

325
conferences—is that it is a system which has been subject to democratic regulation and control? Will he finally acknowledge that it is fatuous to believe that the BBC can exist in isolation, while other areas of broadcasting are let rip without proper democratic regulation and control? When can we have a comprehensive statement on broadcasting, to cover ownership of satellite and cable, to cover quality of programming in satellite and cable and to cover the degree of British production provided by satellite and cable?
Mr. Brooke: I do not agree with the observation of the hon. Gentleman that, in his words, so-called free markets could not deliver quality television. It is one of the glories of our system, with public service broadcasting on the one hand and commercial broadcasting co-existing beside it, that we produce very fine television. I think that the system is the better for the introduction of commercial television, and I am conscious that the Labour party opposed that when it was introduced.
As to the question that the hon. Gentleman asked me about the next stage in developments, when I announced the cross-ownership media review in January this year, I said that the official stage in that should be completed by the end of June; that date has now passed, and we are therefore moving into the stage of consideration by Ministers.
Mr. David Mellor: I also warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the White Paper, which recognises that there is as great a need for a strong, well-resourced and independent BBC today as there ever has been in its history. His decision on the licence fee must surely be right, not only for the BBC, but for independent television, since one of the strengths of British broadcasting is that two entirely separate rivers of finance flow—one from the public and one from commercial advertising.
Is the vote of confidence by the Government in the BBC entirely occasioned by the radical changes that the director—general and his team have been carrying through? If those radical changes had not been carried through, would it have been possible for the Government to take the view that they have in the White Paper?
Mr. Brooke: I am particularly grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who is right in what he says about the interaction with independent television and the fact that there is, if not quite a seamless robe, something that must be seen as a whole. That is one reason why those in commercial television are as enthusiastic as they are to see the BBC thrive. I wholly agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the radical changes introduced by BBC management.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: In welcoming the Minister's basic proposals and his warm words of praise for the BBC, I must ask him whether he agrees that it is unfortunate that most of that was not said three years ago. Instead, the interim period was used to keep the BBC twisting in the wind and to turn his lunatic friends loose on it with their dark nostrums. As a result of that period, much damage has already been done. There has been a collapse of staff morale and a weakening in the quality and provision of programmes, particularly at a regional level.
326
There have been cuts in the cultural and music provision. A pluralistic and diverse organisation has been forced into a Birtian corset when it should be much more diverse.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problems of the BBC will not be solved by such tinkering? The best way of helping the BBC to be the major provider and the major competitor on the international scene that we need it to be is to keep up its confidence and maintain the supply of money to it to enable it to do its job.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman asked me why I did not say something three years ago. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has told me that I will not be at this Dispatch Box in a week's time. I certainly was not at this Dispatch Box in my present capacity three years ago. Like shadow spokesmen in the Department, people in my position are here today and gone tomorrow.
On the hon. Gentleman's final question, patently, the morale of any organisation is the greater if it has confidence in what it is doing and confidence in its future. I hope that the White Paper that we have published today will reinforce that sense of confidence in the BBC.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Carrying on somewhat from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), may I ask my right hon. Friend to enlighten me as to why the licensing authority should require those who apply for black and white television licences to sign a declaration to the effect that their televisions are black and white?
Mr. Brooke: I must congratulate my hon. Friend on having asked me a question for which I was not wholly prepared. I suspect that the answer is that, when the appropriate monitoring service visits houses, it is found on a number of occasions that the television sets are in colour, but the licences are for black and white sets. I dare say that, in order to avoid the possibility of colour blindness, there is concern when the licence is taken out that the householder should be conscious of what sort of television he owns.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Within the framework described by the right hon. Gentleman why has not a much more radical degree of autonomy and decentralisation been sought within the BBC to create BBC Wales, BBC Scotland and regional stations that can flourish and develop away from the Birtian centralised view of life? That view is centralised, despite the semantic changes that he has recently made. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not close his mind to those proposals.
Mr. Brooke: There is a limit to the amount of change that any organisation can make in a relatively short space of time. There is no question but that the present management of the BBC is moving power and authority out to the different countries of the United Kingdom and to the regions. I am sure that the BBC will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the nonsense of ethnic quotas? The programme credits and the faces of those reading the news show that ethnic minorities are at least adequately represented. They are welcome, valued and fortunate to be

327
here, but should not they be told that British culture and attitudes should predominate, not least in the British Broadcasting Corporation?
Mr. Brooke: That is essentially a matter for the management of the BBC, conducted under the law. It is responsible for its programming and employment practices.
Mr. Roy Beggs: In the right hon. Gentleman's very comprehensive statement, he said that there were obligations on the BBC to observe due impartiality. Does it have a responsibility to promote British culture and identity? Can he assure us that Northern Ireland may be subjected to less promotion of Irish nationalist culture and identity, as it, too, is part of this nation and the BBC is there to serve the British nation?
Mr. Brooke: The responsibility of the BBC for the culture, heritage and arts of this country is something to which I alluded in my statement. One of the glories of the BBC is that it has been speaking on behalf of the whole nation for more than 70 years. Every minority can expect to be represented, informed, educated and entertained. As someone who was resident in Northern Ireland for part of his career, I pay tribute to the manner in which BBC Northern Ireland conducts that remit.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, during the BBC's extension, one of the most significant improvements in technology will be digitised broadcasting? Does he further recognise that, no matter what the BBC does in that area, it will be against the backdrop of a diminishing share? He should take that into account when considering the possible licensing of Channel 5—a terrestrial channel. Digitised broadcasting and Channel 5 would enhance the considerable advantage that British industry currently enjoys in that technology. It would be good for our local electronics companies and it would be good for Britain's balance of payments.
Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend alludes to something to which there was a passing reference in my statement, but obviously his reference to Channel 5 goes outside the statement. There is widespread recognition of the industrial opportunities and the broadcasting gains that can flow both from advances in digital and from the potential of Channel 5. It is certainly a subject of which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I never lose sight.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The White Paper makes a commitment to the transfer of a proportion of network production from London to Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the regions of England. What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give about the content of those programmes? Where will editorial control lie? It would not be good enough simply to transfer the production of those programmes, because it is important that they reflect the language, culture and tradition of each of those countries and regions.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the BBC's transfer of network production. However, the opinions that we gathered during the consultation process showed that there are as many people who want the production in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and, indeed, in parts of England of programmes that have a universal application for the nation, as there are
328
who want a strictly regional application. It is an exercise in balance that will have to be sustained within the countries and the regions themselves. However, it is a point which is not remotely lost on the BBC.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the BBC continues to give tremendous stimulus to music through its broadcasts, its orchestras and its promenade concerts and that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is completely wrong about it? I join in the general welcome for my right hon. Friend's decision on the 10-year charter and his references to the Select Committee's work, but will he accept that the licence system is not quite satisfactory? The evasion rate is 7 per cent., there are many criminal cases and all the expensive paraphernalia of detector vans. May we dare look forward to the day when eventually it will be possible to disconnect non-payers, as one would with water bills?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tribute that he paid to the BBC's commitment to music and I pay tribute to his work as a member of the Select Committee. I alluded to the changes in technology that will make it possible to consider alternatives to the licensing system, let alone to examine the system itself, but he is right—there is resentment that some people in this country enjoy the benefits of television without paying for it.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: During his deliberations, did the Secretary of State receive any representations from those people who are versed in technological Babel and who are calling either for a merger between the BBC and British Telecom or Mercury or for joint public-private sector ventures between the BBC and British Telecom or Mercury? Does not he recognise that that road leads inevitably and inexorably, first, to loss of editorial control and, ultimately, to privatisation?
Mr. Brooke: In response to an earlier question from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Select Committee, I said that the issue of the convergence in the technologies would obviously overshadow the next 10 years of the licence fee, but I made no comment on the substance of the issue.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members—although obviously not all—are pleased by his reassurance that the licence fee will be the fundamental way of financing the BBC over the next phase? However, does he realise that our support is necessarily provisional because, in the rapidly moving world of telecommunications and broadcasting, we want the following principles to be maintained: continuity, universality and above all, quality? In the past, the BBC has been renowned for those things, but we want a reassurance that they can be achieved in future.
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing what might be regarded as a new issue: the fact that maintaining the critical mass of the BBC to achieve the objectives that he described has been an important element in our thinking. As for the provisionality of his views, there will be an opportunity, prior to the year 2000, to review the licensing system.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State accept that, while I welcome his

329
statement's broad approach and the principles on which that it is based, there is real concern among broadcasters in Scotland, Wales and, I am sure, in the English regions—there is nothing parochial about that concern—that they do not wish to broadcast inwards but they wish a fair opportunity to broadcast outwards to the rest of the United Kingdom? Does he also accept that an antidote to the centralist tendencies in the BBC or any large organisation is needed and that the Government have a duty to ensure that resources and the commitment are there to allow all parts of the UK to play a full part in the BBC?
Mr. Brooke: In answer to other questions, I have mentioned the moves that the BBC has already made, but all hon. Members will be watching closely to see what the outcome will be. The BBC's heart is clearly in the right place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on.

Points of Order
4.23 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you take a close interest in the affairs of the Principality and no doubt you will have read the leading article in the Western Mail which refers to a statement that the Secretary of State for Wales intends to make. The article reads:
"The Development Board for Rural Wales is to be scrapped. Welsh Secretary John Redwood will unveil his plans to abolish the quango in the Commons tomorrow."
It would not be appropriate to raise the substance of that matter today, because, even though it is controversial and will be bitterly resisted by Opposition Members, it is a matter for future debate.
However, I want to raise with you, Madam Speaker, the fact that such a statement seems to me a clear illustration of the arrogance of a Government who have been in power too long, and who demonstrate at every turn their total contempt for the people of Wales. Above all, it shows gross and deliberate discourtesy to the House, and to you, Madam Speaker. You have ruled before that when Ministers have a statement to make to the House of Commons, they should make it to the House of Commons,
330
not pre-empt the proceedings of the House by running away and making statements to the press. Will you confirm that that is the practice, and that that is what you require Ministers to do?
Madam Speaker: I must confess that I am not an avid reader of the Western Mail, and as I am not in possession of all the relevant facts, I do not wish to comment on the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. What I do know is that much newspaper comment is often speculation, but I reiterate my view that all important announcements by Ministers should be made to the House in the first instance. I hope that Ministers will always bear my comments in mind.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR FRIDAY 22 JULY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Harry Cohen

Lady Olga Maitland

Mr. Alan Meale

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be possible for you to outline your thinking on statements? I understand the position of the Speaker if there is a pressing day and urgent business, but we all know that today is a very light day—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. Only eight Members were still seeking to catch your eye earlier, Madam Speaker, and we finished at 4.23, not even at a "round figure" such as 4.30 or some other magic hour. May I ask for your thinking on the subject?
Madam Speaker: I do not operate on magic hours; I operate on the basis of when I think the statement made by a Secretary of State has been exhausted by Back-Bench Members. I felt that that was the case today, as I do on many occasions. I have many factors to weigh and to take into account—such as the business before us, which I do not consider at all light, and the fact that we shall return to the issue. I also take into account the fact that I often see frustration on the faces of many hon. Members who are very active; the hon. Gentleman is one of them. I know that he likes to put questions to Ministers, but I have to take so many things into account, and I think that it was fair enough that we finished when we did today. Of course I shall remember the hon. Gentleman on a future occasion, just as I will remember other hon. Members in all parts of the House.

School Leavers Community Service
4.27 pm
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to introduce a mandatory requirement for the National Record of Achievement of every school leaver to include details of the school leaver's contribution to community service; and for connected purposes.
You will not be surprised to learn, Madam Speaker, that my favourite English historians are Messrs Sellars and Yeatman who, in their classic work "1066 and All That", divided the great moments and the great figures of history into those that were a Good Thing and those that were not. I believe that the whole House will accept that community service is indisputably a Good Thing.
In my part of the world, hundreds of young people are involved in community service—through their schools, through the scouts, the guides and the sea cadets, through Church groups and through voluntary organisations as different as the YMCA and the Chester rural youth action team, and through schemes as well established as the Duke of Edinburgh's award and as innovatory as the Central Council of Physical Recreation's sports leadership award.
Many young people in Chester and beyond are giving freely of their time—helping senior citizens to paint a kitchen, clearing a local canal, picking stones off waste land to turn it into a playing field, working with a will in the local hospital or hospice, serving the homeless and the discarded. Many thousands of young people are already committed to voluntary service—but not enough. We need more. In fact, we need them all, because community service should be part and parcel of every young person's education.
A number of people have been floating ideas in this area for a number of years. Indeed, looking through the cuttings file in the Library, it seems that the notion of some kind of national community service has been on somebody or other's agenda since the ending of national military service back in 1963. The Prince of Wales raised the issue again last week. The Labour party's Commission on Social Justice has explored the possibility. The Government have promised £350,000 as part of their "Make a Difference" initiative to encourage more first-time volunteers and to provide new opportunities and easier access to volunteering.
Across the political spectrum, I hear people talking about the role of the active citizen. I think that I even detect a certain squabbling as to the ownership of the concept of civic responsibility.
The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): We thought of it first.
Mr. Brandreth: The Secretary of State asserts that we thought of it first. He is right on most things, so I shall give him the benefit of the doubt on this. Argument, debate, conferences, pamphlets, editorials are all very well, but it is time for action, which is why I am proposing today a practical first step.
Thanks to the Education Reform Act 1988, every school leaver is now equipped with a national record of achievement. My Bill proposes that that all-important document should contain space for a clear and detailed record of the school leaver's contribution to the community. So, alongside the national vocational 332
qualifications and the GSCEs, one would be obliged to show the detail of the community service that one has undertaken.
We can learn from the experience of the United States in this area. In 1992, Maryland became the first state to require community service from students as a condition of high school graduation. Other states now follow Maryland's example. I am not advocating a top-down approach with a heavy structure to impose compulsory community service, but a simple mechanism which will encourage an ever-increasing number of young people to give their time, energy and talent to the community, so helping the community and, equally important, helping themselves.
The move will have wide support. Dr. Martin Stephen, the chairman of the HMC community service committee, has been a pioneer champion of the cause. Community service volunteers, through its CSV education programme, are actively working with schools and colleges to involve young people in positive community action. Martyn Lewis, the good news broadcaster who is visiting the House today, is patron of "Youth for UK", a scheme designed to promote volunteering by 16 to 25-year-olds, based on the belief that all young people should be encouraged to undertake a period of voluntary work.
Wisely, "Youth for UK" wants young volunteers to begin by taking advantage of the opportunities that already exist. It wants to encourage greater co-operation between current providers without in any way threatening their independence. It wants to extend the scope for volunteering so that, in time, sooner rather than later, every young person in Britain will see community service not simply as an exciting challenge, but as a natural part of civilised life in a civilised society.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been a Member for a couple years only, which is why I still claim to be loosely in touch with reality. Amid the arcane procedures and curious rituals that we have here, several of which still puzzle me, I have nothing but praise and thanks for the opportunities which exist for hon. Members to promote private Members' Bills. My first such Bill did not get past its Second Reading, but the essence of it was taken up by the DTI. My second Bill did not reach Committee, but aspects of it now form part of a Department of the Environment planning policy guidance note. The Video Recordings Act 1993 is now the law of the land and the Marriage Bill may yet be. I am pleased to report that it completed its consideration in Committee this morning.
Whatever the cynics may say in the House and beyond, we Back Benchers, as well as making a noise, occasionally make a difference. I understand that, since 1970, just six ten-minute Bills have reached the statute book. Given the contribution that the young can make to community service and given the contribution that community service can make to the young, it would be glorious if this Bill could be the magnificent seventh.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Graham Riddick and Mr. Nigel Forman.

School Leavers Community Service

  SCHOOL LEAVERS COMMUNITY SERVICE
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth accordingly presented a Bill to amend section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to introduce a mandatory requirement for the National Record of Achievement of every school leaver to include

  333
  details of the school leaver's contribution to community service; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

Orders of the Day
  Education Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered
  Education Bill [Lords]
    New clause 1

      COMMENCEMENT
      'Part I of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which it is passed.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.35 pm
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in clause 5, page 3, line 32, after 'may', insert 'after 1st April 1996'.
      No. 11, in clause 26, page 16, leave out lines 26 to 29.
      Mrs. Taylor: The Opposition have tabled the new clause and amendments to give the Government another chance to reconsider their ludicrous timetable for the implementation of the measures contained in the Bill. We are opposed to the Bill in principle and we think that it has some serious practical faults. We are extremely unhappy with the Government's lack of attention to the practical difficulties that their proposals will bring to education. We believe that it would be appropriate, even at this late stage, for the Government to think again.
      One of the main features of education in the past decade, and especially in the past two years, has been change on change, experiment on experiment and change seemingly for the sake of change. If any hon. Member asks a parent, a school governor or a teacher to state their concerns about education, above all else—there is much else that they complain about—they will speak out about the pace of change that the Government have imposed on education.
      Regulations have been introduced before those that preceded them were implemented. Enormous amounts of education legislation have been introduced in recent years. Even now, the Government having been forced to reconsider the national curriculum, there is an insistence that that be done at breakneck speed.
      The Bill is yet another example of the haste that the Government show when introducing their legislation. I thought of asking the House who it was who claimed that a good maxim is legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. On reflection, I considered that that would not be a fair question to put to the House because the statement was made by the Secretary of State at the time of an Appeal Court hearing by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers.
      It is fair to ask why the Secretary of State always insists on legislating before consultations are complete and in pushing legislation through regardless of the views of those involved in education. Why does the right hon. Gentleman, time and again, tell us that every piece of legislation that he brings before us will be the last piece in the jigsaw? That was the phrase that he used when the Bill came before the House for Second Reading. Alas, it was the phrase that he used on Second Reading of what became

      335
      the Education Act 1993. Whoever is Secretary of State when the next piece of education legislation comes before us will undoubtedly use similar terminology.
      I shall remind the House how rapid has been the change to education that the Government have introduced. In March, the Secretary of State announced that the SCITT—school—centred initial teacher training—pilot schemes were to go ahead. At the time, he said that those pilot schemes were going to be in advance of any future reforms. However, the Education Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 23 November and, as the Secretary of State was forced to acknowledge in response to parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), the results of those pilot schemes will not be known until next May.
      Therefore, we have a Bill which is supposed to be based on the experience of pilot schemes, but we are debating this important legislation before we know the outcome of those pilot schemes. It is clear that the pilot schemes were no more than a sop, a pretence and an appearance that the Government were going to be reasonable.
      There are no arguments in favour of the very rapid timetable that the Government have introduced, but there are many arguments against it. One of the arguments against the Government's timetable is the confusion in Government quarters about what they think should be happening with regard to teacher education generally.
      The Opposition argued on Second Reading and in Committee that it was essential that teacher education should be provided by a partnership between higher education and schools which could provide practical experience. That point was acknowledged on occasions by junior Ministers who seemed to accept that that was the best way to proceed. However, that is not what the Bill allows for. It allows for that partnership to be broken.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Just for the record, does the hon. Lady concede that the Bill does not preclude that either? The fact that something may be desirable does not necessarily mean that it must be prescribed in statute.
      Mrs. Taylor: Something as desirable as a partnership in this critical area should be on the face of the Bill. We will reach a critical amendment on that point later and I know that some Conservative Back-Bench Members are concerned about that issue.
      I hope that Ministers will respond to my point at this early stage. What is the Government's collective view on the future of teacher education and that partnership between higher education and schools? I have seen the document which has been prepared by the Northern Ireland Office. That significant and official document is dated 1 June 1994. It is therefore also a very recent document. It is therefore a recent statement of Government policy. It states:
      "The planning and implementation of ITT will necessitate the strongest possible partnership between ITT providers and schools."
      It is clear that Northern Ireland Ministers expect that partnership to be important and to continue.
      In the past couple of days, I have seen an even more interesting statement by a Minister, this time at the Scottish Office. I assume that one Department responsible for education consults another Department responsible for
      336
      education. However, in Scotland, the Scottish Office has decided that, far from schools having an even greater role in teacher education, the reverse will be the case.
      Scottish Office Ministers have issued a document to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities which contains new guidelines. According to those new guidelines, instead of the present arrangement which has been advocated by the Scottish Office whereby trainee teachers should spend 22 weeks in school, the Scottish Office is now recommending that they should spend 18 weeks in schools.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education may well look startled by my comments and I must admit that I was somewhat surprised when I read the new guidelines. While Ministers responsible for education in England and Wales are allowing school-centred initial teacher training—that is, schools to be the focal point of teacher training—their colleagues in Northern Ireland are talking about the importance of partnership and their colleagues in Scotland are reducing the number of weeks that trainee teachers need to spend in schools to obtain practical experience.
      I submit that, with Ministers facing in so many different directions, it would be wise to accept the new clause and allow further time for reflection.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Colin Pickthall: I was not aware of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office document. Her points add a great deal of weight to the new clause.
      The fact that not enough time is being given to assess the results of the pilot schemes properly is very important to the new clause. However, the new clause, like the Bill, is also about the future of the quality of teacher education. Public confidence in our teachers in future will depend largely on what happens as a result of the Bill.
      We believe that the Government intend in the longer term that their programmes like school-centred initial teacher training should be expanded across the whole of the teacher education sector. At the moment, the Government argue that that programme applies only to a section of postgraduate courses. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education said that there were no plans to expand the scheme at this time. When talking to a Centre for Policy Studies meeting last year, the Secretary of State said that SCITT schemes
      "give students the opportunity to bypass teacher training."
      That phrase says a great deal about the intentions.
      In Committee, we also heard what many Back Benchers would like to see happening to teacher education. In contrast to that, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) who has a distinguished record in education, said:
      "By all means let us try to reform teacher training…by encouraging a great deal more emphasis on classroom skills and experience…However…we must be careful not to reduce too far the role of higher education institutions. They have a great deal to contribute".—[Official Report, 23 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 353.]
      That was well said and I hope that Ministers will take that point into account.
      Clause 16 allows the Secretary of State to impose any changes he wishes on the Teacher Training Agency. That again opens up an avenue about which we are concerned. We have tabled new clause 1 because we believe that the consequences for education could be dire. It could be dire

      337
      for the teaching profession; for schools and their pupils in consortia; for teacher education departments in universities and colleges; and for local authorities and their responsibilities.
      Those dire consequences may not happen, although we do not know that. However, we know that education institutions of all kinds are infinitely adaptable and none more so than higher education and HE in so far as it is involved in teacher education. It has adapted enormously over the past two decades. However, the balance of probability is that there is a massive element of risk in what the Government are doing. About 99 per cent. of education practitioners are at best apprehensive about the consequences of the Bill, and at worst diametrically opposed to it. Asking why leads us to seek to amend the Bill.
      In recent weeks, we have seen the disintegration of some partnerships or parts of partnership schemes. We know that the basis of partnership is being extended into SCITT schemes. In Committee, we noted that the deputy head of the Bishop Stopford school in Enfield was reported in The Guardian of 17 May as saying that the consequences of partnership for his school were extremely problematic. There had been serious consequences for senior members of staff who were using far too much time in the supervision of students, and therefore the school was withdrawing from the partnership.
      In Committee, we were informed of an article in The Times, written by a mature student, Jeremy Howard, who had spent 15 years as an art dealer before experiencing such a partnership. His view—it is straight from the horse's mouth—is:
      "The trouble with learning in the classroom is that you get few second chances. It is not easy in school to admit when things are going wrong, for fear of an unsympathetic response or being labelled incompetent."
      He reports on Keith Holt, who leads the school-based pilot scheme at Whitmore school in Harrow and who believes that students who plunge straight into a school-based course tend to be less adventurous in their teaching. Perhaps that is what the Government want.
      Attrition rates among mentors in partnership schemes are up as much as 25 per cent. That is what Manchester university has experienced. Student drop-out rates in partnerships are growing and are greater than in older established schemes. There have been reported cases of students in partnership schemes having restricted access to higher-ability pupils because the school fears for their over-exposure. Obviously, it has league tables in mind.
      The Association of University Teachers and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education sent hon. Members a document which pointed out that, in one Birmingham partnership scheme, all the selective schools have left the scheme because of pressure on staffing resources.
      Those cases are anecdotes and individual examples, but they are important straws in the wind to demonstrate the risk that the new clause would avoid.
      The response of head teachers in particular is that, as teachers of children, they are inherently unsuited to teach students in the school situation. Time is needed to examine that judgment, about which teachers have been informing us throughout the progress of the Bill.
      338
      Current pilot schemes obviously benefit from initial enthusiasm and commitment. One would expect that. Therefore, one would imagine that the Government had everything to gain from delay. Presumably, the results from pilot schemes will be good and will be enthusiastically reported. The Opposition believe that there should be time for them to be properly assessed.
      There is much concern about the widening of and the effect of SCITT schemes over a period, the effect on cost assessment in schools, and the effect on the increased bureaucracy needed in schools to run the schemes. The Bill does not allow time to assess those wider implications. We have had reports of the pressures on teachers as a result of the incessant changes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury remarked on, and there have been the pressures of curriculum change, which I hope will ease a little over the next 12 months.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: One understands that the hon. Gentleman is a former lecturer and that he wants to stand up for the old higher education lecturers who are his friends, but has he taken the trouble to go to a school which has a school-based initial training scheme and assess it for himself, as I asked in Committee? Has he done so yet?
      Mr. Pickthall: I have not been to one of those schemes, but I intend to do so. As I said in Committee, I do not expect to be critical; I expect such schemes to be well run. That is not the substance of my argument.
      There have also been league tables and reports of tensions that have been created by league tables, particularly if a schools finds itself slipping in comparison with other schools in the neighbourhood, which could happen because of over-exposure to students. One has seen that already. There have been problems in schools of managing surplus places and the financial consequences of that. There has been the exceedingly high incidence of retirements among experienced teachers in the past few years—the very teachers who would best be able to support students in those circumstances. All those factors mean that there will be excess stress on school staff involved in the schemes or the neglect of students—one or the other.
      We also must consider the effects on students. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said that it takes five years to assess the success of a student's training or teacher education. I would not go that far; I do not think that one could wait that long, but at least some time is needed to assess output—one year, perhaps. For example, we should ask how many students have a job at all at the end and what problems they have in terms of their qualifications. Will there be two tiers of new entrants into the teaching profession as a result of the Bill? What success have students had in the first year, particularly now without a probationary year as a support?
      What will be the effect on students of the lack of individual tutorial supervision, the lack of library and research back-up that higher education institutions have, and the lack—I would not underestimate it; it is terribly important—of student mutual support and welfare systems? We must also consider the effect on teacher education departments occupied by young lecturers as well as old ones, I might add, in universities and colleges. They need time, just as the country needs time, to assess the consequences for themselves.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that all is well in higher education institutions. That is certainly not the case. There is enormous dissatisfaction with diploma of education courses and others. That is fundamental to the pressure for change, and the hon. Gentleman should know that.
      Mr. Pickthall: I did not imply even remotely that everything was perfect in existing teacher education institutions—that would be foolish. Of course we need continual change and improvement. If such institutions are as appalling as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why are Ministers constantly concerned to tell us that they are only tinkering with a corner of the postgraduate certificate of education courses and leaving all the rest of them alone? If matters were as appalling as the hon. Gentleman says, they would wipe the lot out and start again. Some Conservative Back-Bench Members would like to see that happen. I have seen no evidence in any quantity to suggest that dissatisfaction with the present teacher education arrangements in colleges and universities is as widespread as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as an indictment of the training of teachers that so many school leavers are illiterate after 11 full years of compulsory state education? Is not that an indictment in some way of teaching training?
      Mr. Pickthall: No, it is an indictment of 15 years of Conservative control of the education system. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) cannot have it both ways. His Government have been in charge of the education system for 15 years, and presided over a period when the education standards to which he refers fell.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we go any further, hon. Members should get back to debating commencement.
      Mr. Hawkins: If the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) is suggesting that the figure for the literacy of school leavers was significantly better in 1979, he is entirely mistaken. I suggest that he looks at the statistics.
      5 pm
      Mr. Pickthall: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that literacy has not decreased? I do not follow that argument at all. I shall try to wind up quickly.
      Local education authorities also need time to adjust because the impact of consortia on local education authority networks will be considerable, depending on the concentration of them. They will have an impact on special educational needs provision, reading support services, the existing cluster arrangements and the existing feeder school arrangements. All that adds up to a compelling case for delay and for proper assessment of what is going on at present, much of which we approve of and want to support.
      The Bill is going through on hope and guess. There is no disagreement about partnerships, which should be given more time to demonstrate that they can deliver better education. There is no disagreement about the need to continue to improve teacher education and to refine the increased class-based training. But those working in
      340
      schools and colleges express deep concern about the likely outcome. They deserve to be reassured by proper assessments. We must get it right first time; otherwise, the Government essentially could be conducting an experiment on school pupils and students which is likely to fail.
      Mr. David Evennett: I want to make a brief contribution to the debate on new clause 1, not only as a former teacher from the 1970s but as someone who is married to a teacher. I shall begin by commending the work on the Bill by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and the Ministers on the Front Bench, my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). It is pioneer work and should be supported by the House.
      We all want better teachers. We want better trained teachers. We all want better standards in the classroom. We all want academic excellence, good vocational courses and good basic education. For all those things, we need well-trained, well-motivated teachers. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that we should put off the reforms for 12 months. Many of us feel that reform is long overdue because teacher training has been too academic; it has not looked enough at the chalk face of what is going on in schools, and it has been based too much in an ivory tower.
      In the Bill, we have an innovative approach to providing better and more relevant teacher training so that teachers can do a better job, parents can be happier with the teaching in our schools and all pupils can be better educated. We all know that the majority of teachers in our schools do a good job. They have a difficult and demanding job and we must ensure that they have the tools to be able to do that job to the best of their ability. If we come along, as we have in this Bill, with considerable reform to try to improve teacher training, why should we wait? What is the benefit of saying that we want reforms and improvements but we want to wait?
      Mr. John Gunnell rose—
      Mr. Evennett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. It seems that he always wants to wait until tomorrow.
      Mr. Gunnell: I am struck by the fact that the hon. Gentleman has told us that the majority of teachers are good. He said that the majority of teachers have the skills. Almost all of them have been through the present training system, and they have acquired those skills from that system. Why is the hon. Gentleman confident that these changes will result in all teachers having those skills? What evidence does he have that there will be an improvement? We think that the whole thing is rubbish and will not help at all.
      Mr. Evennett: That is the voice of unenlightened self-interest—the voice of teacher training colleges and lecturers. What I am saying is that teaching changes. We are in a different world now. We are on this side of the House because Labour are still living in the 1960s.
      Ms Estelle Morris rose—
      Mr. Evennett: I will not give way. I must be brief because other hon. Members want to speak.
      All I am saying is that we have come forward in the Bill with reforms that are necessary to deal with teacher training today to ensure that we can educate the children of

      341
      today and tomorrow. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) is looking back. There are some good teachers but they need retraining. More importantly, we want teachers to train our children for today and tomorrow so that they can compete in the world. As we all know, it is a competitive world out there. We want the best teachers. We want them trained so that they can get the best out of our nation's children. That is what the measure is about. We must therefore reject the new clause.
      Mr. Derek Enright rose—
      Mr. Evennett: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution in a moment; I know that he wants to do so.
      What I am saying is that we must reject the new clause. We want the Bill implemented now for the interests of our children, the parents and, ultimately, the teachers. Teachers want to be well trained so that they can enable our future citizens to make a good contribution to and fight for this country with the skills that they need to take on the world in industry, commerce and so on. Without good, well-trained teachers, we cannot have well-educated children. Therefore, we must reject the new clause and get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible, in the interests of education and in the interests of the people of this country.
      Mr. Don Foster: It is extremely difficult to make a speech following the one by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to see high-quality teaching in our schools from well-trained and highly motivated teachers. No hon. Member would disagree with that. The problem is that the hon. Gentleman has failed to give an example of one element of the Bill which will lead to the improvements that he wants to see.
      Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is bought and paid for by the union for higher education lecturers—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Bath is in order; otherwise I would have ruled him out of order.
      Mr. Foster: I should point out to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) that I am not bought and paid for by the union for higher education. I would be interested to know the union to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. As he is well aware, and as I have declared on many occasions in the House, I am supported by two teachers' unions. That has been regularly declared, as the Secretary of State will recognise. [Interruption.] I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I went into the question of how much, which would lead me to ask the Secretary of State how much he has been paid recently for a number of his activities.
      If the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is accepted by the House, it will give the Government the opportunity to stop and think and, in doing so, to reflect on the Bill, especially part I. If we are lucky, they will realise the error of their ways.
      342
      The Secretary of State has claimed that the Bill is the last piece in the jigsaw of education reform. I hope that he will recognise that all the recent pieces that have been put in the jigsaw have been hastily introduced, have had little consultation and, following their introduction, have often had to be changed. For example, reference has already been made to the national curriculum and procedures for testing and assessment.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise those constant changes in higher education, to which he wants to add. In a recent speech he referred to the "pell-mell pace" of change. I also hope that he will recognise that many of our teachers are suffering from what can only be described as innovation fatigue. I suspect that the difficulties that have been caused by those rapidly introduced bits of the education jigsaw—ill-thought-out and poorly consulted on—together with what might generously be described as some insensitivity, might lead to the Secretary of State's downfall in the forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle.
      Hon. Members may wish to remember that, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
      "When I eventually leave my post in a good number of years' time".—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 597.]
      I think that his prediction is wrong. If he were willing to undergo a last-minute conversion and to accept the new clause and amendments, he might just save himself, although I suspect not. If he accepted the new clause, it would give him time to question why such legislation and such a body as the Teacher Training Agency are so important for England, but are not yet necessary for Wales or Scotland. It would give him time to consider whether it is right for the Secretary of State for Education to take on yet more powers. He already has more powers than any Cabinet Minister, other than the Prime Minister.
      If the Secretary of State accepted the new clause and the amendments, it would give him an opportunity to reflect on whether it is right to establish yet another objectionable, costly and superfluous quango, whose membership is to be determined solely by him, thereby undermining any possibility of it being seen as independent or credible.
      Mr. Heald: I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman deny that he represents the lecturers, as he does. He represents the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
      Is it not the case that he opposes school-based initial teacher training? If that is so, why does he want to introduce it in one years' time? Why the shilly-shallying? Is it because he does not want to nail his colours to the mast in case the changes succeed? Will he answer the question that I put to him in Committee? Does he support such training, or is it the usual Liberal compromise?
      Mr. Foster: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman as clearly and unequivocally as I did in Committee. I am opposed to the introduction of entirely school-centred initial teacher training. I should have thought that he would have understood why I support the new clause, if he had been listening. It will create some time for the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench colleagues to reflect on the errors contained in this legislation and will possibly allow them to introduce further legislation that would prevent those moves from taking place.
      Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Member agree that that is a complete nonsense? If he is against, he should be against

      343
      and not introduce the change in a years' time. That is shilly-shallying in case it succeeds——then the Liberal Democrats will change their tune.
      Mr. Foster: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could wait until Third Reading, when—by voting—I will make it absolutely clear where I and my party stand on the Bill.
      The time that would be created, and might give the Secretary of State the opportunity to change his ways, would also enable him to consider whether it is right to fragment higher education, which is what the Bill will do, by separating the education of teachers from all other aspects of higher education and thereby diminishing the already fragile professional status of teachers.
      The Secretary of State would also have time to reflect on why so many organisations oppose the proposals and so few accept them. On Second Reading he said:
      "The success of all our reforms depends on teachers working hard to put them into effect."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 600.]
      If that is so, would it not be a good idea to ensure that those, or any new proposals, are widely accepted before they are implemented?
      The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) said that he wanted well-motivated teachers, but the introduction of one piece of legislation after another with which they disagree is hardly the best way to motivate teachers.
      Because of the time allowed in the new clause, the Government will be able to reflect on whether it is appropriate to have yet more changes in initial teacher training, on top of the many changes that have already taken place in recent years and which the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) so rightly described. There would also be time to reflect once more on the advisability of moves towards skill-centred initial teacher training.
      The hon. Member for Lancashire, West was not certain whether the Bill intended such a move. I believe that the Government intend to push hard towards school-centred initial teacher training.
      5.15pm
      If one wants evidence, one needs only to read the Secretary of State's words on Second Reading, when he said:
      "We are taking training closer to the chalk face and out of the ivory silo."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 600.]
      Much more convincing evidence comes from the 1994
      Conservative party campaign guide, which stated:
      "The Education Bill currently before Parliament will give effect to the clear and distinctive Conservative view of teacher training—based on the belief that schools themselves should play the principal role in devising, and running, teacher training courses. Students should spend time in the classroom gaining practical experience and less time in higher education institutions learning (often left-wing) educational theory."
      That is the principle that underlies the Government's move.
      As other hon. Members have asked, is it not foolish to move towards school-based initial teacher training before the results of the pilot schemes have been evaluated?
      One final matter on which the Secretary of State and Ministers may wish to reflect is that, if the measures go ahead, there is a danger that the number of institutions that participate in initial teacher training will decline markedly during the next few years. If that is the case, the very choice and diversity that Conservative Members are keen on providing will not be available.
      344
      I hope that the House will accept the new clause and the amendments, as they will give us time to reflect on the appalling proposals contained in the Bill and, having reflected, allow us ultimately to throw it out in its entirety.
      Mr. Hawkins: In a very brief contribution I want to make one important point—that the people who matter in an education system are the children, followed by their parents.
      As a former teacher, the son of a teacher and a university don and, most importantly, as a parent governor in a state junior school for some years, I was appalled by the low calibre of some people coming from teacher training colleges. There are many fine teachers and I pay tribute to their work, but when teachers leaving training colleges cannot spell properly, subtract, add up, or do simple mathematics, how are they supposed to pass on the required skills?
      Mr. Enright rose—
      Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry, but I shall not give way because I said that I would be very brief.
      I speak for parents and children, who deserve better-quality teachers. That is what the Teacher Training Agency will provide and that is why we should reject the Opposition's new clause. We want full support for the Government's proposals.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): The amendments moved by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and supported by Opposition Members are misguided. They attempt to go back over the same ground which was trodden earlier in Committee, except that this set of amendments is rather worse constructed than the earlier amendment covering the same issue. I shall come to the technical aspects later.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: Not too late.
      Mr. Squire: I take that correction from a sedentary position from the hon. Lady.
      The intention of the amendments is clear. The Opposition do not want to see the Teacher Training Agency up and running for another year, if at all. They do not want to see one body with an overview of teacher training bringing together the key functions of giving information to potential students and promoting teaching as a career, ensuring that all courses meet national standards, encouraging diversity in provision and offering choice to students, and allocating funds in pursuit of the statutory objective of raising the standards of teaching.
      That is what the Teacher Training Agency will do and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) reminded us, it is something which the Government are firmly pledged to carry through. The House sees a compelling case for the agency, and voted accordingly on Second Reading.
      I have yet to hear a compelling reason why the implementation of the new arrangements should be subject to an arbitrary and unnecessary delay. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) commented on it with wise words, and I agree with him completely. I accept that changes to the new arrangements for funding and accreditation will need careful planning. Contrary to

      345
      the allegations of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, the changes will be phased in. Delaying the setting up of the agency will militate against sensible transition.
      I listened to the hon. Member Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall)—as I did in Committee—talk about his fears and concerns about change and the possible risk. I accept that we are requiring a change in teacher training, but the change is designed to improve performance. We do not underestimate the importance of getting in the new arrangements properly with the co-operation of higher education and schools. The Teacher Training Agency will be well placed to oversee and monitor that process and adjust the funding and other arrangements as necessary.
      Those, I submit, are arguments in favour of a specialist body and are scarcely arguments against. After all, only when the agency is up and running with members and officers can it start to take a view on the important issues. Not having an agency until this time next year will simply freeze the position for 12 months, and that will not help the agency at all. It appears that one single issue has blinded the Opposition to the range of important work that the agency will be doing and co-ordinating.
      Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Squire: I refer, of course, to school-centred initial teacher training and, at that precise moment, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Foster: I was trying to catch the Minister's eye just before he moved on from that point. He said that the Teacher Training Agency will be making vital decisions affecting teaching. Will the meetings of the TTA be held in public, following the advice given by Baroness Blatch to the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, as the agency is making vital decisions on one aspect of teaching?
      Mr. Squire: The meetings will not be held in public, but the hon. Gentleman knows from the points raised in Committee that the general code of openness will apply to the proceedings and deliberations of the agency. It will not have open meetings as such.
      The key issue from the Opposition's comments both here and in Committee has been the question of school-centred initial teacher training. Delaying the Bill would not prevent progress with school-centred training under existing legislation, which would carry on and be funded directly by the Department on pioneer courses. It would mean that, rather than the agency looking across all teacher training—in the light of all the evidence—and making judgments about the balance to strike between school-centred and other courses, that balance would remain for my right hon. Friend to determine for another year.
      In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), that is scarcely an example of more power being taken by the Secretary of State. On the contrary, the Bill is another example of my right hon. Friend passing up powers.
      I accept all that has been said about the importance of the Ofsted evaluation of school-centred training, and I say the same about all Ofsted evaluations. The agency will be
      346
      well placed to take account of the emerging messages in the decisions which it takes on funding or courses during the academic year 1995–96.
      Mr. Greg Pope: Does the Minister agree with the disgraceful comments made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) that many newly qualified teachers are of a low calibre? If he does agree with his hon. Friend, why does the Minister think that those low-calibre teachers are the people best placed to train the next generation of teachers?
      Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman is trying to lead me down avenues which I am not particularly willing to go down. I am happy to tell him that, on the basis of several visits both to school-centred training and higher education teacher training, the calibre in general of new teachers is very good. [Interruption.] But I would think that it would not be a matter for argument across the Chamber that teaching in general needs ever higher standards to match the demands being made on schools by the world outside. I hope that that is not controversial. We are trying to ensure that there is a better chance of higher-calibre teachers emerging in the future.
      Ms Estelle Morris: If the Bill becomes law, will the Government continue to make larger grants available to students sitting their teacher training course in a SCITT than to those sitting their course at another institution?
      Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady is, in effect, referring to one of the many decisions that the Teacher Training Agency will need to take. That will be linked with the value for money which we have stressed throughout the proceedings. The agency will be looking for quality in courses and will also look for value for money. In very broad terms, the sums of money that school-centred initial teacher training courses will get will be similar to that which goes at present to higher education.
      Ms Morris: The specific point about which I wished to talk was the grant being made available to students sitting their initial teacher training course. I think that I am right in saying that at the moment students get a greater grant when they are on a SCITT course than if they do the same training in another institution. Will the Government say whether that will continue, or will they allocate resources and grants equally to all students who are studying initial teacher training, whatever way they choose to do so?
      Mr. Squire: I believe that I am right in saying that the intention is that students will be treated in the same way under whichever form of training they are going to be receiving, whether it is higher education-dominated and school-based or school-centred. If that is not true, I shall return to the point during our proceedings this afternoon. That is certainly my understanding of the matter.
      I mentioned at the outset certain technical deficiencies, and I shall not spend too long on them. Amendment No. 11 removes the commencement provisions of the Bill. While new clause 1 would at least enable part I to be started-although late—it would not enable parts II and III to be started. That would not allow essential student union reforms and would leave much of part I ineffective without the general provisions of part III.
      Amendment No. 4 adds little to the overall effect of amendment No. 11 and new clause 1. It would simply prevent the agency and the Higher Education Funding

      347
      Council for Wales from funding institutions under the Bill until the financial year 1996–97. Since the agency would not exist until 1995, that could hardly be described as a further bar as it could scarcely do otherwise.
      The Government have no intention of agreeing to the amendment, or the others in the group. There is no reason to delay, and the case for the agency is clear cut and accepted by the House. The amendments are wrong in principle and in practice. They would create uncertainty and confusion, and I ask the House to resist them.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: The debate has been much longer than I expected when I moved the new clause. The Minister was correct in one point—the Opposition do not want to see the Teacher Training Agency established. We have consistently opposed the Bill in principle, and we are seeking with the new clause to give the Government time to reconsider and look at the evidence which is not yet available because the pilots have not been completed.
      The Minister's responses to many of the questions show that there are still many points which need to be decided, such as the critical point which he was not able to answer with regard to student support.
      Mr. Squire: Lest there be any confusion, let me confirm that SCITT students will be treated on precisely the same basis as HE students.
      Mrs. Taylor: The Minister is learning all the time, and I think that that experience will apply to the whole Bill.
      One of the most interesting comments was made by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), who said that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) opposed the Bill in case it succeeded. If Conservative Members are
      Speaking in such terms, they are clearly not convinced that it will succeed. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) expressed concern about children; his first concern should be to stop the experimentation that has so disrupted the quality of education recently.
      The Minister did not tell us why the Government were adopting inconsistent attitudes to Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales. Perhaps we can return to that on another occasion.
      I accept that the new clause and amendments may be technically deficient. I do not want to waste time; we have other important matters to discuss. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 2

      FUNCTIONS OF HER MAJESTY'S CHIEF INSPECTORS OF SCHOOLS
      '.—(l) Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools may cause any institution which provides initial training for school teachers to be inspected, as regards the provision of such training, by one or more of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools (in this section referred to as "Inspectors").
      (2) An Inspector shall for the purpose of inspecting an institution under this section have at all reasonable times—

      (a) a right of entry to the premises of the institution;

      (b) a right to inspect, and take copies of, any records kept by the institution, and any other documents containing information relating to the institution, which he considers relevant to the discharge of his function.

      (3) It is an offence wilfully to obstruct an Inspector in the exercise of any of his functions under this section.
      (4) A person guilty of such an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Pawsey.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. James Pawsey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Pawsey: Let me immediately declare an interest: I am an adviser to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
      This is principally a probing new clause, designed to develop the case made in Committee for inspection of colleges providing initial teacher training. Those who served on the Committee will recall that I tabled amendments that would have given OFSTED a prominent role in the control of such training. Sadly, when the lead amendment was called I was taking a delegation to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside; as I obviously could not be in two places at once, I was unable to move the amendment. I am therefore anxious to raise the important issue of quality assessment in ITT and HMI's role in its improvement.
      I was pleased that the amendments that I tabled in Committee received some support, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy in responding so fully and agreeing to consider them further. I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tabled amendments to clause 5 which deal with the first point that I made in Committee, and I am grateful to him. I believe that my right hon. Friend is a listening Secretary of State—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members making funny noises. My right hon. Friend listens to arguments, and if they have substance he acts.
      HMI's role should be clearly specified in the Bill. It has an important part to play in the work of the Teacher Training Agency, and no one would dispute that an objective and professional assessment of training would greatly assist decisions about the way in which money should be allocated. If the concept of "to the best, the most" is too elitist, at least we can ensure that colleges whose standards are lower receive less money.
      In a newsletter dated April 1994, the Campaign for Real Education states:
      "Educational reform will never succeed without radical improvements to the cultural attitudes prevalent in the teaching profession… Perhaps the first priority of the new agency should be an urgent review of the way trainee teachers are taught to teach reading? Improvements to this crucial part of teacher training could raise national standards more quickly than anything else. And may we look forward"—
      this is the nub of the new clause—
      "to careful checks on all teacher training courses, coupled with the withdrawal of funding for those where 'good practice' based on ideological beliefs takes precedence over proven teaching methods supported by research?"
      The new clause will allow discussion about whether teacher training should be more closely associated with HMI's statutory duties. It may be considered slightly outside the mainstream of OFSTED's functions as set out in the Education (Schools) Act 1992, but we are now establishing a new statutory basis for initial teacher training, and I consider it entirely logical to set out a new statutory basis for its inspection.
      I understand that HMI currently has the right to inspect schools, but—and it is an important but—no right to inspect higher education and teacher training. The new

      349
      clause takes a slightly different tack from the amendments tabled in Committee; I am trying to stress the need for HMI to inspect institutions—and, if it is given such a right, it will also need absolute rights of entry and access.
      I realise that my suggestion may be considered slightly controversial, and may not be entirely to the liking of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It may be seen as a direct challenge of the committee's autonomy, or even as a challenge to academic freedom. Like all Conservative Members, I give way to no one in my belief that academic freedom is a pillar of our democracy: it is of the utmost importance. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, East—[HON. MEMBERS: "Blackpool, South."] I am sorry; I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). He stressed the importance of parents in this connection; he also referred to the importance of teachers, and I was interested by Opposition Members' reaction to that. He is right: there should be a partnership between children, parents and teachers.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his geography, but he seems to be moving away from his central argument. The principle that he advocates—proper inspection of the new scheme—is admirable. Does he envisage on-the-spot, unannounced visits, longer inspections over a set period or a combination of the two?
      Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for supporting the general principle. He asks whether inspections should be unannounced, or whether HMI's descent should be clearly advertised. I subscribe to the former. I should like inspections to be carried out without notice.
      I want to achieve a high standard of teacher training, which, in turn, will ensure a high standard of teaching. In its turn, that will ensure a high standard of education for the nation's children. High standards can be guaranteed only if there is some right of independent inspection. The new clause seeks to remedy what I regard as a defect in the Bill and underline the importance of proper inspections for, without them, the quality of teacher training cannot and will not be guaranteed. If rigorous inspections of schools are necessary, why should they be any less necessary in the training of teachers?
      A leading article in The Sunday Times of 10 April said:
      "On the eve of the NUT conference, a report from the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit should have sent a shudder through the nation…It discovered that the number of young people who have serious problems with literacy and numeracy has risen in recent years from one in eight to one in five."
      That quotation shows the whole justification for the Bill and the need substantially to change how teachers are trained.
      Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only negative thing that one could say about this reform is that it should have been done in 1979? It is long overdue, but I am delighted that it is happening at long last.
      Mr. Pawsey: I accept what my hon. Friend has said.
      I disagree with mixed-ability teaching. I am convinced that it is one of the fashionable panaceas that existed during the 1960s and 1970s. I have the utmost doubts about its effectiveness. I hope that I may be able to persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to mention the matter, because it is outdated and should be dropped.
      Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by "mixed-ability teaching"? How would he organise it, for example, in religious or physical education?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, it would help the debate and be correct if he would return to the subject of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools.
      Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While I should have liked to have responded to the question of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), perhaps I shall see him in his usual place in the Library in the fulness of time.
      One of the issues that prompted me to table new clause 2 is the decline in the standard of English teaching. There is substantial evidence from Ofsted of particularly weak performance in that subject. For example, the new "Teacher in School" survey says that some 46 per cent. of new primary teachers do not feel adequately prepared to teach reading. That is a damning indictment of the present system and it underlines yet again the need for change and for a proper and adequate system of teacher training—and the need for its inspection. [Interruption.] I regret the fact that Labour Members seem to think that teacher training is a laughable matter. I believe that initial teacher training is a serious issue that should be given the consideration that it deserves. I am delighted that at least Conservative Members are treating it in a sober way.
      I was about to compliment Opposition Members by saying that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to improve the quality and standard of state education, where the overwhelming majority of the nation's children are educated. The Bill will do much to advance that laudable objective, but it will do so that much more easily if an adequate system of inspection is in place.
      The new clause not only ensures that institutions providing initial teacher training will be inspected, but that inspectors—
      Mr. David Jamieson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Pawsey: No, I shall not give way.
      It ensures that inspectors have a right of entry to inspect and take copies of any records that are maintained by those institutions.
      I have also built into the new clause penalties for failing to provide inspectors with the co-operation which they will require in exercising their duties. I suspect that my right hon. Friend may have some modest difficulty in accepting that part of the new clause, yet unless a penalty exists, the rigorous inspection that is required will not take place.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. George Walden: Naturally, I sympathise with the passions that drive my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) in proposing the new clause. I hope that he will forgive me for sounding a little cynical in what I am about to say.
      One of the problems which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education faces is that he can work only with the material available, whether that be children whose parents cannot even talk because they spend their time watching television at home; whether it be children from hopelessly deregulated families; or whether it be

      351
      children who are subjected to an old-fashioned system of education, based on a defunct philosophy. I am talking about John Dewey's philosophy—the rot set in during the 1890s, not the 1960s, with phoney theories that have gripped the minds of generations of well-meaning, not always very bright, members of the profession.
      What worries me about my hon. Friend's proposal is that I cannot see how we shall find inspectors to go into those institutions and root out the philosophical addiction that lies deep in the minds—worse, in the souls—of people who are often not at all left-wing. Worse, they are deeply sentimental people who have, deep in their souls, a mistaken philosophy of education, which it will be impossible to eradicate by inspectors, not least because we shall be unable to find inspectors who are free from the same virus—unless we use some form of thought police.
      I confess to being a little surprised by the phrasing of the new clause, which says:
      "A person guilty of such an offence is liable on summary conviction"—
      that sounds a little Stalinist—
      "to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale."
      That conjures up the idea of some sort of right-wing thought police going into those establishments, complete with manacles and scales of fines, who would try to constrain those people financially or even physically. The Chinese communists would call it "thought reform", which is what is needed because nothing short of thought reform à la Chinoise—if we are still allowed to use French—will change those people's minds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not want to be associated with that.
      Mr. Pawsey: May I respectfully remind my hon. Friend that one of the quotations that I used was drawn from the Campaign for Real Education. As it seems that he may have inadvertently forgotten, I said:
      "Educational reform will never succeed without radical improvements to the cultural attitudes prevalent in the teaching profession."
      I do not believe that there is so much of a gulf between us.
      Mr. Walden: I did notice that phrase, with mental approval. However, the second part of my argument, which I shall now develop, is that one will not be able to find the inspectors to do that job, and to change the culture of the people inside the institutions, because they themselves are the product of those institutions.
      I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State what he makes of a detailed, and I think responsible, report in The Daily Telegraph today by John Clare, one of the most distinguished and seriously engaged people in the field, which enunciates some of my private misgivings, which perhaps I should have voiced at the time—mea culpa on that—about the new inspection arrangements.
      My misgivings were based precisely on the fear that one will not be able to find people to do a better job at inspecting schools in the private sector, when inevitably they come from the same stable as existed in the public sector. Mr. Clare's report shows, in its detailed accounts of what appear to be serious failings in individual schools, that those inspectors, who cost a lot of money, incidentally, are using the same wily, evasive phrases as were, and I imagine still are, current among Her Majesty's official inspectors, such as, "the lessons seem to me to be"—what is that terrible phrase ?—"satisfactory or better". It seems
      352
      awfully low on the scale to me to have a "satisfactory" level of teaching, and "better" is slightly woolly, to say the least.
      Mr. Alan Howarth rose—
      Mr. Walden: I see that my hon. Friend is about to get up, and I will give way, but I shall finish this thought while it remains a coherent one.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth is proposing a new clause for more inspection by Ofsted, and I am pointing out that, according to that evidence and other anecdotal evidence that I have heard, the new system is not working brilliantly in schools, so why should it work well in those heartlands of education, the teacher training establishments?
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is waxing deeply melancholic. On the logic of his position—that those people who are products of a system can never improve it—and given his view that the system is unspeakably awful, should we not give up education altogether?
      Mr. Walden: That would be an option, and in a sense it is one that I have taken, by withdrawing my three children from the state education system, at colossal cost to myself over the years. I begrudge every penny of that, because my friends in France, who have a rather elitist form of state education—and often turn out to have more money than I do—send their children to state schools where they very often receive a good, demanding education, which is so difficult to find in this country, as the putative Leader of the Opposition is about to discover. I am not being vindictive, but I attach a lot of importance to education, and I think that the press will be justified in watching very closely the personal judgments made by the putative Leader of the Opposition when it comes to his own children.
      I am not being negative about that; in a way I am being more positive, by pointing up the question, than people who evade it by—
      Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Walden: Let me finish the thought, and then I will certainly give way. I am being more positive than people who evade it by proposing solutions that I consider unworkable.
      Mr. Enright: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that it is wrong for the putative Leader of the Opposition to send his children to a Catholic school?
      Mr. Walden: I see Mr.—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. What has that to do with the inspectors of schools? [Interruption.] Order. Wherever anyone wants to send their children to school, it is nothing to do with the new clause before us, which is about the inspectors of schools.
      Mr. Walden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had a good answer to that intervention, but I now feel prohibited from giving it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) posed the real question, which is that if I believe that we are caught in a vicious circle, which we are, and he accuses me of being—I forget how he put it—negative—
      Mr. Howarth: Melancholic.
      Mr. Walden: I once wrote a pamphlet on that very subject, called "The Blocked Society". It was a melancholy analysis. The new clause is a perfect example, which is why I rise to speak to it, of the nature of the blockage in this country. It is "Quis custodiet custodes?" My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth is asking people to go into those establishments when they have not—obviously it is only my view—the necessary critical approach to those philosophies, which date back to the early part of this century, to John Dewey and so on, and are deeply ingrained, and have been enormously damaging to this country for many decades.
      I must come up with a solution, because it is no good simply stating that there is a blockage. The first part of the solution is to state the blockage and not evade it, as I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth may be in danger of doing.
      The second thing to do, which may sound slightly idealistic although I can think of no other solution, is to try to get people—I admit that it is difficult—who are not tainted by what I call "conventional thinking" in those matters, and who are capable of taking an international view and considering what goes on in France, in Germany and even in Russia. One of the few things on which the Soviet regime made progress, although it did not get it right, was education. Those people should consider other countries and ask why we all have such a fundamental problem about education in this country. Even Opposition Members, in their quieter moments, know that we have a fundamental problem—a "blockage", in my terms—about education.
      Those people should try to bring together two or three authoritative people—I dare even use the word "intellectuals"—thinking people, respected people, and obviously not all Tories because this is something that is so much more important than politics. They should commission those people to take a hard look at educational establishments, from the point of view of the philosophy that is obviously prevalent in all of them as far as I can see, because all the people I meet say the same thing, and to ask themselves what good that way of thinking has done our country, whether they consider that it is still the right way of thinking, and if not—as seems to me self-evident, but they may reach another conclusion—what can be done to change, in a non-party way, the text books that are used in those establishments.
      To return to the new clause of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, which I support, they should decide what intellectual guidance can be given to inspectors to update their thinking when it comes to inspecting those establishments.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great care and deep interest, and I think that the House is. I hope I do not belittle him—that is the last thing that I intend to do or have the right to do—but does he not seem to assume intellectual sterility in the generation about which he worries so much, and assume that there is no dynamic about the thinking, even though they have been badly educated? If he does think that, I think that he is mistaken. If he does not think that, why does he not think that they can break out of their weak education by the natural dynamic that is in every human being?
      Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and perhaps I am in danger of sounding as though nothing has happened. Obviously a lot has happened, especially on the Conservative Benches, in that field. Even reading the speeches of the putative Leader of the Opposition on education and educational philosophy, which is so closely linked to the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, one senses a certain edginess about what is going on in education, together with a resolute desire not to offend the educational clientele of the Labour party. That sort of edginess, which can even be seen in the speeches of the putative Leader of the Opposition, comes from the dynamic thinking on education that has taken place—among Conservative Members rather than Opposition Members—over all these years. Therefore, it is correct to say that things have moved on.
      However, the point that I am making is still correct. How does one implement the new clause with the thinking in the army out there without changing that thinking? We know that that problem has always been the bugbear ever since we started the reforms—we started late, in 1983–84 rather than 1979. We have not cracked the nut. The solution to the problem is not to try to crack it by party-political, ideological heavy-handedness. We must obtain—I hate to use the phrase, but it is the only one that I can think of—a national consensus that there is something gravely and philosophically amiss in our teacher training colleges.
      I agree with the new clause, but I should like it to be accompanied by an extremely serious, high-level and possibly bipartisan proposal for the appointment of, perhaps a trio, of nationally respected people. Those appointees should not necessarily come from the educational sphere, but they must ask the question: something is deeply wrong—what can be done about it?
      6 pm
      The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I have been allowed by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, who bore the heat in Committee, to have a brief airing today to reply to new clause 2.
      I welcome the opportunity to have a brief discussion on issues of quality that are of central importance to the success of our reforms in this as in all other sectors. Labour members of the Committee offered no suggestions on this subject in Committee. They were not concerned with quality and it was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) to raise that issue and to gain an assurance then that we would return to the subject on Report. The Labour party was not interested in quality. My hon. Friend has also, in a probing spirit, as he has emphasised, tabled new clause 2 to stimulate further brief debate.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Secretary of State did not choose to serve on the Committee of the Bill. Had he done so, he would have been familiar with the amendments tabled in Committee, including the one dealing with quality that was similar to the new clause that we are

      355
      discussing today, although it related to another clause. I hope that, in view of that, the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his comments.
      Mr. Patten: If one looks at the account of the Committee's debate in Hansard, one sees that there was very little, if any, concern for quality shown by the official Opposition. It was the issue of quality that brought my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) to his feet. He made some interesting suggestions, with one of which I shall begin my comments and one of which I shall use to end them.
      My hon. Friend's first suggestion was that I should, in a Brezhnevian way, introduce some thought police to go round teacher training colleges to take a close look. I had never thought of that idea, but as it has been suggested by my hon. Friend I shall ponder it.
      My hon. Friend was saddened and felt that state schools were inadequate for some children in this country. I visited a couple of good state schools—both grant-maintained—in his constituency of Buckingham last month, shortly before I was egged in Buckingham marketplace—not by my hon. Friend. The egger was much more accurate than the National Union of Students has ever been and destroyed my suit in the process.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham referred to the quality of inspection. The House knows that Professor Sutherland, the chief inspector, takes seriously, and will investigate, any allegation that registered inspectors are not being rigorous enough in their reports on schools. It is clear that the inspectors are being tough. Already, 10 schools have been declared to require special attention as failing schools.
      That was thought to be an outrageous concept two years ago when I introduced it in the Education Act 1993. It is now part of the warp and weft of the way that we look at schools in difficulty. Local authorities are learning that they must co-operate to turn such schools round. Where necessary, we shall ensure that such schools are transferred to an educational association. A new and strengthened framework for inspection was issued last month. It takes account of the experiences of the first year of inspection and strengthens the criteria against which inspectors must report.
      My hon. Friend made the important suggestion that we should consider bringing in international expertise. That is not a matter for me; it is for the chief inspector. I shall draw my hon. Friend's proposal to the attention of Professor Sutherland. I shall draw to the attention of everyone in the Department for Education the fact that we in the Department must do all that we can to ensure that we never indulge in politically correct language and encourage a degree of approval in national life for intellectualism. One of the great barriers to national advance has been that for most of this century there has been such a strong anti-intellectual streak in British culture. That has not done us any good.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham feels that there are some difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) said that it was important that we got going and regretted the fact that we did not begin the reforms of teacher training 15 years ago. That may be a fair comment, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham that we must start somewhere, and we must do so with the tools that we have to hand. I prefer to start as we are doing now rather than do nothing.
      356
      Improving quality in teacher training is extremely important. We have taken the first steps towards ensuring quality by setting out the necessary knowledge and skills that all new teachers need. Teachers and their trainers now know what is expected of them. I believe that that step has been welcomed on both sides of the House, but it is not enough. To find out where the best initial teacher training is taking place—to promote best practice and help it to drive out outdated and ineffective approaches—we need good first-hand evidence about quality and the way in which different courses are succeeding or failing. It is critical that we do that.
      I think that we are all alarmed—my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth certainly expressed alarm in his notable speech when he moved the new clause—at the evidence that almost half of all recently qualified primary school teachers reported that after four years in college they felt ill equipped to teach the reading of English. If that is not a matter for alarm, I shall be very surprised. I hope that it is taken as seriously by Opposition Members as by Conservative Members.
      We read in the recent, hard-hitting OFSTED report of the need for primary teachers to use a range of teaching styles, including whole-class teaching and grouping by ability. I understand that the Select Committee on Education, on which a number of right hon. and hon. Members serve, has been hearing from some eminent teacher trainers—not men and women of the left or right in conventional terms, but people who a few years ago might have been characterised as part of the education establishment—about the extreme difficulties of mixed ability teaching. If they had talked five years ago in the terms that they used in Committee only two or three weeks ago, there would have been a fatwah against them—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who serves with distinction on that Committee. is nodding in assent.
      Teacher training institutions must urgently address those key issues and the inspectorate must judge how effective they are in tackling them. It is to stress our commitment to quality and to the inspection of teacher training that I have tabled amendment No. 1. Clause 5 already requires the agency to have regard to assessment of quality when making its funding decisions. I made it clear from the time of our initial consultation paper that I intended Her Majesty's inspectorate to be the main source of such assessments. But there will be other sources of quality assessment, such as the Higher Education Funding Council.
      Amendment No. 1 reflects the position on the face of the Bill. It adds a reference to any assessments of quality made by either of Her Majesty's chief inspectors of schools—in England or across Offa's Dyke in Wales—to which the agency must have regard. The amendment leaves intact as a second limb the reference to any other quality assessments to which the agency thinks that it would be appropriate to have regard or to which the Secretary of State requires it to have regard.
      HMI assessments are, quite properly, set apart as the first and most essential evidence for the agency. The amendments tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and his new clause today go further than that, as he has explained. His earlier amendments would have added the assessment of quality in initial teacher training to the general duties of HMI under the Education (Schools) Act 1992. That Act

      357
      mentions functions with respect to school teacher training as being among those which may be assigned to HMI. However, we could not at that time include those functions within the full framework of the Act because of its limited scope.
      It was suggested by my hon. Friend in his notable speech—which both sides of the House listened to with great care and attention—that it would be timely to put teacher training inspection on a firmer footing. I have much sympathy with that view. However, for all the reasons that I set out at the start of my remarks, it is essential that we secure equal inspection treatment for schools and higher education so that all providers of teacher training and teacher education can be assessed on exactly the same basis.
      In effect, for many years HMI has had the de facto right of entry to inspect teacher training in universities. The holder of my office would not otherwise have approved the course. That was achieved by agreement with the institutions. As my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary stressed during the passage of both parts of the Bill, we set store by academic freedom—of course we do—and we have no wish to intervene under statute except where necessary—of course we have not. We want to leave as much freedom as possible to higher education institutions.
      In reflecting on the new clause, I have given careful consideration to all the options. My hon. Friend said that it was a probing new clause, so I ask him to give careful thought to the following way of proceeding. While not quite as straightforward as amending the Bill, nor as satisfactory in terms of putting HMI's own duties in this area on a par with its duties in respect of schools, I assure my hon. Friend that I intend to secure exactly what he wishes by another route. In other words, I intend to ensure that HMI carries out its important role by means of terms and conditions of grant. Put simply, but not crudely, the bottom line will be no inspection, no funding. That will achieve the end that my hon. Friend wants.
      I can tell the House tonight that I propose to make it a condition of my grant to the Teacher Training Agency—[Interruption.] I hope that one day the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will regret the fact that she has never apologised for the disagreeable personal attack on the distinguished high master of Manchester grammar school, who is assuming the chairmanship of the agency. It was a disgraceful attack on one of the best head teachers not only in this country but in the world.
      It will be a condition of my grant to the agency under clause 7 that, in turn, it should impose as a condition of its grant to all higher education institutions under clause 5 a requirement that they must allow HMI unrestricted right to inspect activities on which the agency's funds are spent. I believe that that will meet the need to secure for OFSTED the unequivocal right of access to universities and colleges, but it does not raise any theoretical issues of academic freedom. It ensures that high quality can be rewarded while ensuring that action can be taken where less than satisfactory courses are found.
      I hope that that proposal meets with a general welcome and that, in the light of this explanation of our further
      358
      intentions, the House will join me in welcoming amendment No. 1. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw new clause 2.
      Ms Estelle Morris: I want to deal with some of the issues that have been raised and to speak in this important debate about monitoring standards. I do not wish in general to refer to what individual hon. Members have said, other than to say that I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) was very sad. It is dangerous when someone reaches the opinion that no one else is right and loses the knack of recognising the strengths in a whole range of views and opinions. My view on politics and education is that we should take the best of all the ideas. No one person has a monopoly on ideas. "Commissar Walden" spoke of thought police and gave the impression that, unless people agreed with him, they had nothing to offer.
      Mr. Walden rose—
      6.15 pm
      Ms Morris: I shall not give way as I would be in terrible trouble with my regional Whip—
      Mr. Walden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not usually resort to this rather cumbersome way of intervening. The hon. Lady is so lacking in any sense of irony or humour that she took my remarks about thought police seriously.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?
      Mr. Walden: The hon. Lady, having no sense of irony, is suffering under the misconception that I was advocating thought police, when in fact I said that I was against that—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) is responsible for her own speech.
      Ms Morris: I have never thought of the hon. Member for Buckingham as someone who could teach humour, let alone irony.
      It does the Secretary of State no good to pretend that the Conservative party is the only party interested in standards. No one would believe that. However, I believe that Conservatives do have a wish to raise and maintain standards, but they are wrong in the way that they have set about doing so. It does politics and education no good to reduce the debate and to accuse one's opponents of not caring about standards. None of us who has been involved in education has spent years working for and thinking about education, working with children and teachers, for any reason other than to raise standards. We may not always get it right, we may not always agree, but we share that aim. As soon as we take that as our common starting point, we will further the cause of raising standards of education.
      Whatever new structure is introduced, monitoring and maintaining standards must be an integral part. Without that, we could fail to meet the original purpose of any legislation. Previously, OFSTED has had only an inspection and quality assessment role in so far as the Secretary of State has determined that, not by statute but by other means.
      Therefore, I welcome two developments that the Bill will facilitate. First, following Opposition amendments in

      359
      the other place, there will be liaison between OFSTED and the Teacher Training Agency. Baroness Blatch introduced that amendment following pressure from the Opposition. Secondly, Government amendment No. 1 will ensure that HMI reports are consulted when funding decisions are made. I welcome that.
      However, standards will be raised only if there are organised and thorough inspections after the accreditation of courses, rather than in order for a course to become accredited. There is little in the Bill about that. Baroness Blatch drew attention to OFSTED' s role in inspecting and monitoring standards as courses continue, but prior to this evening the Secretary of State has been strangely silent on that matter.
      Perhaps the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) had that in mind when he tabled new clause 2. I appreciate the worries about that, but I am worried that more than half of the lines deal with disciplining people who break the law. I suppose that, from the "cane 'em and hang 'em high" Member, that was only to be expected.
      The Secretary of State has just announced that he would sooner tie the pressure to carry out OFSTED reports to funding than to statute. The Front-Bench Labour team will speak for itself, but I would prefer there to be a statutory function. I worry when one ties funding, which is crucial, to making people behave in a certain way. There is a need for strict criteria against which to distribute funds. That is different from saying, "You might meet the criteria, but you cannot have the funds because you have not had an inspection." I would prefer there to be a statutory duty.
      I want to raise some important queries that have not yet been answered. We need a cycle of continuing inspections after accreditation. In school-centred courses, they should be separate from the four-yearly cycles of inspections. They have a separate purpose.
      I am concerned about whether OFSTED has sufficient resources to carry out the extra tasks. As the Minister will know, the Higher Education Funding Council for England was concerned that evidence from OFSTED was not sufficiently comprehensive to enable reliable judgments to be made about the quality of initial teacher-training courses. There is now no incentive for the HEFCE to continue to give OFSTED the extra staffing and help to carry out inspections. What will happen if the HEFCE withdraws that support? Will the Government give an assurance that OFSTED will be given the resources that it needs to carry out extra inspections at the quality level that is required?
      Understandably, the criteria for inspection of school-centred courses have not yet been released. Opposition Members seek an assurance that the criteria and the standards for those courses will be as rigorous as those for initial teacher training institutions.
      Mr. Pawsey: Given the extremely helpful and categorical assurances of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, if there is no inspection, there is no funding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 4

      QUALIFYING ACTIVITIES AND ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 15, at end insert
      360
      'except that in the case of training specialist teachers of pupils with special educational needs eligibility for funding shall be limited to institutions of higher education offering courses in collaboration with relevant schools and services.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 5, page 4, line 13, at end insert
      'and to the quality of provision by such institution of training to equip teachers to meet the requirements of the Code of Practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs.'.
      No. 19, in page 4, line 13, at end insert
      'and to the quality of provision by such institution of training to enable teachers to meet the requirements of section 241 of the Education Act 1993 (sex education).'.
      Mr. Griffiths: I can be brief in discussing amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 19. I hope that our debate will be brief and will achieve a consensus, which such debates normally do.
      Amendment No. 16 has been tabled principally to elicit from the Minister an assurance that under the Bill the Government have no intention of going beyond initial teacher training in terms of providing school-centred courses. Opposition Members and those people involved in special education are concerned that the Bill could be used to allow schools on their own to provide the more detailed postgraduate and specialist training of teachers of children with severe learning difficulties, hearing impairment and visual impairment. We want to ensure that there is no question that such specialist courses could be left to school-centred training and that, as is essential, institutions of higher education will be involved.
      I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept either amendment No. 17 or the spirit of the issues that I wish to raise. During the debate on new clause 2, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) referred to the politicisation of education and how he would like such politicisation to be removed, even though he then made a highly political speech. In our desire to have the requirements of the code of practice enshrined in the Bill, we are promoting what has probably been the Government's most successful effort at achieving a consensus among all those people involved in education and the truly bipartisan approach which, sadly, the debate on education has so far been lacking.
      The code of practice represents a revolution in education practice. What may have been the aspirations of all those involved in education and schools have, under the code of practice, become specific requirements. It would be fair to say that the code institutes a revolution in the skills expected of teachers. It makes new and specific demands on all teachers, so it is important that initial teacher education should take account of the code, which was not in existence when the Bill was drafted.
      The code of practice demands that teachers are not just competent professionals, but classroom superstars. In footballing terms, they are goalkeepers, defenders, midfield players and strikers all in one. That is what the code demands. Already, very limited time is available in initial teacher education to meet all the demands that the code places on teachers. There is a need, therefore, for all initial teacher education courses to have at their heart the requirements of the code of practice.
      The code of practice puts in question whether school-centred initial teacher training can be carried out without the partnership of an institution of higher education. Any hon. Member who considers the

      361
      requirements in the code from paragraph 2.70 to paragraph 2.84 will be convinced that it is vital that the Bill requires teachers to have knowledge and understanding of the factors determining a pupil's educational achievement and personal development, including the educational, psychological, medical and social services assessments and reports. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that.
      In principle, we accept amendment No. 19 because we believe that training teachers for sex education should be a vital part of their education, given the levels of sensitivity and skill required to engage children in ways that are appropriate to their understanding and development and in a positive moral framework. We hope that the Government will accept the spirit of the amendments and perhaps even embrace them in the Bill.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: I should like to say a few words about amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I have considerable sympathy with their purpose, which is, as I understand it, to ensure that higher education is appropriately involved in the training of teachers of children with special educational needs. I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that it is a sad thing if hon. Members assume that because ideas come from the other side they must be nonsense and mischievously intended to boot.
      There is a major training task implied by the new code of practice. It is an excellent document, but it makes it clear that all teachers must be involved in the delivery of education for special needs if the necessary whole-school approach is to be achieved. In addition, there will be a need for more specialised training through in-service education and training, ranging from the wide range of skills and knowledge required of the special educational needs co-ordinators to the more sharply focused needs of, say, specialist teachers of severely dyslexic children.
      6.30 pm
      I believe that all teacher training institutions should be required to effect a proper introduction to special educational needs for all their initial teacher trainees. That simple principle should be more than a matter for guidance. Guidance can then establish the nature of the contribution made.
      On the general question of the respective roles of schools and higher education institutions in initial teacher training, at the risk of banality I must say that it seems to me that we need an effective partnership between the two. Admittedly, the partnerships that we have are not always effective, but there are a great many courses in which they are, so I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not throw any babies out with the bath water.
      The Government should ensure that there is partnership, spell out what is required of the partners and take steps, through funding and quality control, to ensure that the requirements are met. Otherwise, I fear that financial and time pressures on schools will lead all too many to economise on their training, and as a result they will fall short of the Government's admirable aspirations as set out in the code.
      There is some truth in the view that higher education institutions have tended to deskill schools and teachers in
      362
      terms of the school's role in preparing new teachers for their professional careers. Schools should certainly do much more than simply help out the training institutions through teaching practice. Over several years that view has clearly gained much ground, and schools are now widely seen as having an essential role and as sharing the ownership of the process. We now need to ensure that all courses of initial teacher training embody that principle and carry it out.
      The contribution of institutions of higher education should be to provide a close awareness of research, practice and policy both in this country and abroad. The multidisciplinary staffs of higher education institutions should be able to add depth and width to professional training, which schools alone could not furnish. I know that some of my hon. Friends are worried about educational theory, and no doubt a certain amount of it has been nonsensical from time to time. However, good educational theory is not disconnected from the real world of teaching and learning, but is a clarification of the principles of good teaching and learning and provides a considered framework for teacher education.
      If there is a view that specialised training in special educational needs—for example, training teachers to teach sight-impaired or hearing-impaired children—could function properly without central, substantial and guaranteed contributions from institutions of higher education, that view is unrealistic. I do not think that the process can be divorced from the research and theoretical knowledge that it is not realistic or appropriate to expect schools of themselves to have.
      Ring-fenced funding will be needed to preserve the capacity of education departments in institutions of higher education to continue to provide that training. If that is not put in place, there is a real danger that vital centres of expertise will wither. I am not arguing for a monopoly for institutions of higher education; I believe that local education authorities, charitable foundations, research foundations and private sector providers can all contribute. Nor do I suggest that there should not be stringent quality control, but I hope that Ministers will be able to assure me that it is no part of their intention to provide any opportunity for the removal of the contribution that institutions of higher education can make to the training of teachers who will teach children with special educational needs.
      I ask the House to consider my amendment No. 19, to clause 5, in connection with the welcome amendment to clause 1 tabled by my right hon. and noble Friends in another place, whereby the Teacher Training Agency is to ensure that teachers are
      "well fitted and trained to promote the spiritual, moral, social…development of pupils and to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life."
      My amendment supplements that general statement with some specificity in one important area. It would require the Teacher Training Agency, in disbursing funds, to have regard to the need for teachers to receive training in sex education. That could be taken to be implicit in the more general wording of clause 1 as amended, but I am not aware of the Government's having committed themselves to ensuring that teachers, especially student teachers, receive such training.
      The importance of teachers being appropriately trained in sex education is highlighted in Julia Hirst's research entitled "Not in Front of the Grown-Ups—A Study of the

      363
      Social and Sexual Lives of 15 and 16 Year Olds", recently published by the health research institute of Sheffield Hallam university. I suggest that Ministers and other hon. Members concerned for the well-being of our young people should read and reflect on the report with the greatest care. Its findings are sad, and are a reproach to us, but it also offers better ways forward. Certainly it highlights the need for better sex education and for training to teach the subject.
      The report demonstrates the vulnerability of the 15 and 16-year-olds surveyed to HIV infection, ill health and pregnancy through unsafe sex and alcohol and drug misuse. It paints a picture of confused and unsure young people having sex, often unprotected, as a commonplace conclusion to an evening's drinking. The summary of findings says that Ms Hirst found that the majority of the group that she surveyed
      "lead secret lives of which their parents are unaware…For the majority, socialising involves sex and drinking alcohol… They are having unsafe sex without any real acknowledgement of the consequences. They are non-monogamous and share partners…the majority of their sexual activity occurred outdoors, usually in a local park… Most sexual activity occurs under the influence of alcohol… Few group members have clear knowledge of HIV or AIDS and make no distinction between the two. They are considerably misinformed on unsafe behaviours. All appear complacent about their risk-taking, believing that HIV has little to do with them."
      The young people demonstrated a poignant indifference to the risks that they were taking. One of them said:
      "We don't really think about it. We have a joke about who's catching it, and all that. Why worry? If you get it, you're dead, aren't you?'"
      The research describes an incredibly dangerous situation.
      Those young people feel that they cannot find advice or support from their parents or their teachers, although they desperately want to be able to do so.
      Julia Hirst stresses the fact that
      "The group are unanimously dissatisfied with the sex education they receive at school and home… They are afraid to ask questions and perceive adults as disapproving and unhelpful. The embarrassment of adults is perceived by them as the main factor in demotivating parents and teachers from addressing the issues more realistically".
      I do not say that the experiences of those young people are universal or normal. I am not asking the House to get the issue out of proportion—certainly it would be good if for once the tabloids were to refrain from exploiting a sad story of unhappiness—but I fear that what Julia Hirst found is all too typical of the experience of too many of our young people.
      The report reconfirms the case—irresistibly, to my mind—for sex education within the national curriculum. Children want it. If sex education is marginalised, even as a compulsory subject, it is much more likely to be inadequately taught.
      Mr. Don Foster: I have much sympathy with many of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Does he agree that, in view of the sort of comments that he is making, a system in which parents may allow their children to opt out of sex education lessons is inappropriate?
      Mr. Howarth: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. I argued that case a year ago when the House took the unfortunate decision that it did. Far from parents being able to opt out of sex education as a separate subject outside the national curriculum, it ought to be integrated
      364
      into a number of areas of study within the national curriculum—including, obviously, science, English, and personal and social education.
      It is plainly essential—indeed, it is a matter of life or death—that education about HIV and AIDS is reliably and responsibly provided. The findings of Julia Hirst's research support the view that sex education should begin early and be developed through the spiral curriculum. The research reinforces the view that the better the sex education and the earlier it begins, the higher the age at which teenagers will first have sex. I stress that good sex education is not, of course, merely about mechanics, but teaches the importance of good relationships, respect, responsibility and love.
      I hope that the Department for Education and the Department of Health will absorb the findings of the research and will act with determination and in close co-operation over them as, of course, I hope that they will do with the findings of the Alan Guttmacher Institute quoted by Miss Hirst. As my hon. Friends know, it studied teenage pregnancy in 37 countries and found that the countries
      "with the lower rates of pregnancy were those countries with a high degree of acceptance of teenage sexuality, good-quality education about sexual matters and high-quality, user-friendly clinical services for young people."
      Those factors apply all too seldom in Britain. It is the opposite of coincidence that, in Britain, we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.
      All this implies large and difficult responsibilities for teachers, who deserve and need better support and training than we have so far given them.
      As I have said, it is a year since we debated the issue in the House and I am more than ever saddened and dismayed at the decision to take teaching about HIV and AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases out of the national curriculum and to restrict sex education in the national curriculum to the physiological aspects of puberty and reproduction, divorced from consideration of values. With the present levels of support and all the competing pressures on teachers, I find it hard to be optimistic about the scope and quality of sex education outside the national curriculum.
      I was pleased, at any rate, that the guidance in circular 5/94 made clear the need for skilled and sensitive teaching of sex education appropriate for different ages. But those high expectations of teachers have not yet been matched, to my knowledge, by a commitment to provide them with the training that they will need if they are to meet them. My understanding is that the Government expect sex education to be taught by experienced teachers, who may or may not receive in-service training for it. I fear that that approach under-estimates the needs. It matters very much that all teachers receive good, appropriate training in sex education during their initial training.
      A survey in 1992 found that two thirds of local education authorities identified teachers' lack of confidence in teaching sex education as the main barrier to effective provision. Training would build their confidence. The National Foundation for Educational Research's 1993 research for the Health Education Authority found that schools are having difficulty in recruiting specialist teachers of personal and social education. The foundation also found that, where INSET funding was not specifically allocated to health or sex education, it was unlikely that

      365
      money would be spent in those areas because of the demand for INSET funding for training in national curriculum subjects.
      The Government have made it clear in their circular, and I acknowledge with pleasure, that the scope of in-service training eligible for funding through GEST—grants for education support and training—includes training in sex education. Unless my right hon. Friend can assure me otherwise, I do not think that the Department has provided any concomitant increase in the funding available for this training and no GEST funding is specifically ring-fenced for it. I wish it would be. But, for the reasons that I have given, even then it would not be sufficient.
      The report of the working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on unplanned pregnancy in 1991 stated:
      "Attitudes in schools to sex education would be improved if initial teacher training courses had health education as a compulsory component. That would include relationships, sexuality and contraception."
      I am sure that that was right. I am sure that more needs to be done to provide well-balanced and comprehensive support for teachers in training in this area so that they can help the kind of children described in Julia Hirst's research, and so, indeed, that they can help all our children, for whom this aspect of their lives is so very important.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Robin Squire: This has been a fairly short and concise debate on at least two important issues. I welcome the way in which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) moved his amendment and, obviously, I listened with care to my long-term hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). Clearly, we shall think long on many of his comments, to the extent that I shall not respond to them separately in my—I trust—equally concise response. I hope to be able to reassure the hon. Member for Bridgend on his key amendment No. 16, but for reasons that I shall briefly explain, I consider all three amendments unnecessary.
      Amendment No. 16 covers the funding of courses for specialist teachers of special educational needs. I made it clear that that is not an initial teacher training issue. Government policy is that all teachers should train for and work in ordinary schools and classes in the first instance and that specialist training, of course, comes later. I assume that the amendment is intended to refer to long in-service courses for those intending to teach in special schools and those are currently funded by GEST provision. However, we have said that we shall consider the case made by special needs groups for asking the Teacher Training Agency to fund such courses in future.
      There has been no decision as yet. Agencies will certainly have the power to fund such courses under the provisions of the Bill, but there is nothing in the Bill which alters the power to provide such courses. There are no new powers for schools to offer in-service training under clause 12. That is limited specifically to initial training. Providing one-year full-time INSET courses, like one-year full-time initial training courses, would require new powers which schools do not have. They will not receive those powers in this Bill. I hope that, on that specific point, the hon. Gentleman is reassured.
      366
      Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 do not have the same practical drawback, but raise an important issue of principle. We see a fundamental distinction between matters of general principle covering the agency's work to be set out on the face of the Bill and the specific content of courses, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's criteria. Not mentioning detailed content issues on the face of the Bill—whether national curriculum, special needs code of practice, sex education or behaviour and discipline—does not imply in any way that they are unimportant issues.
      I very much take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, in particular, about the importance of sex education, but detailed requirements are set out in published criteria and may be adjusted as necessary from time to time and used as a test against which quality judgments can be made. Quality must then, of course, feed into funding, as set out in clause 5.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Under those eriteria, will there be the requirement to have regard to the code of practice in approving any course?
      Mr. Squire: I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that—subject to consultation, of course, which will go out on the draft criteria—we would expect to take into account the code of practice to which he has rightly referred.
      Clause 1 refers to course content. It ensures that the agency directs its efforts towards fitting teachers to carry forward the central aims of education. The words are fairly well known to hon. Members, especially those who served on the Committee. We were happy to add that reference in another place to set the agency's work in context. It would not be right to weight it towards one area of education only, however important that area may be. All ITT courses must equip newly qualified teachers with the necessary foundation to develop skills in SEN issues. That is made clear in current DFE circulars which set out my right hon. Friend's criteria. Such criteria have been and will, in future, be subject to consultation. They currently include references to special needs, which have been generally welcomed.
      Of course, the House listened with interest to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon on amendment No. 19, which stands in his name. Some of the matters that he raised undoubtedly struck chords with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. He reiterated some matters that he first raised a year ago, and he knows that there is a division of opinion between us on some of them. Teachers must be able to teach in accordance with statutory requirements that govern their subjects. That goes for sex education as for all other subjects. I submit again that it would not be right to bring one item of content of training, however important it is—the House is united on the importance of good sex education—into prominence in the Bill, with the implication that other areas of training are less important.
      I welcome the opportunity provided by the amendments for a brief and non-partisan debate on issues of common concern. I hope that in the light of my comments the hon. Member for Bridgend will feel able to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Bryan Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 19, leave out from 'school' to end of line 21 and insert
      'in partnership with an appropriate institution of higher education,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 6, page 4, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert
      'course validated by an appropriate institution of higher education and provided by a school or schools or by a partnership or association of such schools or by a body established by such a school or institutions consisting wholly of such schools.'.
      No. 6, in clause 12, page 6, line 24, leave out '—(a)'.
      No. 7, in page 6, line 24, leave out from 'teachers' to end of line 27 and insert
      'in partnership with, and validated by, an institution of higher education.'.
      No. 10, in clause 14, page 8, line 3, at end insert
      'to ensure that all courses which involve schools in the initial training of school teachers shall be validated by an appropriate institution of higher education.".'.
      No. 14, in schedule 2, page 22, line 9, leave out 'a funding agency under Part 1 of the Education Act 1994 or the governing body of an institution receiving financial support under that Part' and insert 'the Teacher Training Agency.'
      No. 15, in page 22, line 12, leave out from '(2)' to end of line 18 and insert 'after paragraph (a) insert—
      "(aa) with respect to studies relating to the Teacher Training Agency, the agency.".'.
      Mr. Davies: The amendments seek to ensure that postgraduate courses of initial teacher education are provided in partnership with, and validated by, an institution of higher education. They must, therefore, go to the heart of the Bill.
      I remind the House of the Minister's words in Committee. He said:
      "there is…the need for a structured consideration of pedagogy and the theory of education. That is not an issue."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 June, c. 261.]
      I agree with the Minister. We cannot prepare people for entry into a profession without giving them a theoretical understanding of the nature of the tasks that they will have to perform. That should be common currency in the Chamber.
      The real issue that divides the two sides of the Chamber is whether institutions of higher education are to be essential partners in the framing, delivery and validation of courses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said, there are divided counsels within the Government on these issues.
      The Bill seeks to remove the necessary partnership of higher education in ITT courses. In Northern Ireland, however, the Minister for education, speaking admittedly at the Old Inn at Crawfordsburn on 1 June, but doubtless quite sober and not in his cups, said that he thought that the planning and implementation of initial teacher training in Northern Ireland will necessitate the strongest possible partnership between the ITT providers and schools. It is clear that he recognised that there is an essential link.
      Yet Ministers at Westminster are seeking to sustain an argument that the higher education contribution is not necessary. On Second Reading and in Committee the Government have sought to discredit the principle of a higher education involvement in ITT courses. They argued that Opposition amendments—they were accepted in
      368
      another place—were technically flawed. Accordingly, in Committee, they removed them from the Bill, apparently on that basis alone. There was no substantive argument advanced that the quality of initial teacher education would be improved by removing the involvement of HE. That is no surprise, because such an argument would not stand up to scrutiny.
      The Government are saying now that the accreditation of courses of initial teacher education by the new quango known as the Teacher Training Agency will be enough to ensure that they are of sufficient quality. Validation by HE institutions has gone. It has been erased from the Government's political vocabulary. An essential quality assurance mechanism has therefore been removed. Everything will now depend upon the schools where the school-centred courses operate.
      The Secretary of State should have said to his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), when he was challenged about the theoretical issues at stake and the quality of teacher education, "I deny your premise that these issues are theoretical. I deny that we need to have a debate about the nature of the education that we provide for our children. I do so because I know what is right. I will ensure that the present practitioners are vested with the necessary power and that higher education should have no contribution and no standing." That would have been a franker response, but it would have been a denial of the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Buckingham. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman blustered about the way in which he was bringing inspectors into this area of education.
      The Government, logically, are now saying that it is solely for the schools to come to a decision on the validation of courses. At the same time, the pilot schemes—they were designed to underpin the proposed legislation—contain elements of validation by HE institutions. Four of the five consortia have returned to higher education for support and validation. It is clear that the teaching profession regards that as a valuable contribution.
      What other grounds exist for promoting school-centred initial teacher education if it is not to improve quality? It can hardly be argued that there will be cost savings, because the Secretary of State has given repeated assurances that there will be adequate resources for the schools to undertake ITT work. That is necessary against the background of anxiety among parents, children at school and governing bodies that an additional burden is being placed on them without the necessary resources to fulfil their obligations.
      There are certain contributions made by universities that schools will be unable to replicate. I have in mind the support services that benefit university students. Those benefits will not be available to students undergoing ITT within schools. Presumably the schools will have to buy in those benefits. Where is economy of scale in that concept?
      Let us consider the design of ITT courses. Ministers must be worried about at least one instance of plagiarism of an existing course in higher education by a consortium. That reflects the limitations faced by practising teachers in developing themselves the standards to which higher education has been accustomed.
      Does the Bill promote choice and diversity, as the Secretary of State and other Ministers have claimed? Unfortunately not. Schools may decide to run courses in the short term—probably on the offer of substantial cash—only to find that they cannot cope. They will then

      369
      withdraw. It is abundantly clear that the Government's measures are causing university education departments to consider their position. In due course, they will no doubt wither on the vine. That may be the Government's intention. Nothing is explicit, but that may be the hidden agenda.
      It is clear, however, that HE departments concerned with teacher education will be cut off from the HE funding councils. They will not be in the same bidding ring as other university departments. They may find that judgments will be made. At least one university has already decided, admittedly on the basis of a course about which there were many doubts, that it intends to pull out of teacher training. It has made that clear.
      In due course, the result will be more limited choice, not extended choice. The courses available for students who wish to become teachers will increasingly be available only in schools. Recent research at Warwick university has made it clear that in the secondary sector teachers do not have the time to engage in the colossal burden of work that the Government have decided will fall on them.
      It is clear that the Government are asking hard-pressed teachers—we all know of the increasing demands that are made of them through the national curriculum—to become trainers in full of the next generation of teachers. That may well be a burden too far. Without a shadow of a doubt, children will suffer if schools have to teach teachers, and governing bodies of schools are likely to express their reservations and anxieties about those developments.
      For every instance in Committee when Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers produced Central Office handouts of anecdotes about what was wrong with teacher education in the universities, we already have comparable anecdotal evidence of what is wrong with school-based courses.
      7 pm
      Hearsay will not do. However, the House is not being allowed the benefit of the fulfilment of an experiment to examine what has happened in the development of such courses. The House is being asked to legislate on the basis of a half-rushed-through operation, which is far from finished.
      The Minister must recognise the Opposition's anxieties about the international validity of these courses. We are now in the European Community in a professional sense. In every respect, we will see increased mobility of labour. If teachers are to carry qualifications which are provided not by a recognised university, but by a consortium of schools, from a school which no one elsewhere has heard of, how will they compete with graduates from other universities in other countries for jobs that they expect to secure?
      The Government should think yet again and recognise the validity of the amendments. They must accept what was said in the other place, what was moved and passed in the other place and what has been expressed continually in Committee and in the House today: only a partnership between schools and higher education can provide the essential qualifications which our teachers need and our students deserve.
      Mr. Boswell: Try as he might, the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) served up old
      370
      hat and arguments which were much rehearsed in Committee and in another place. He added very little to that old hat, except perhaps some new trimmings which were as objectionable as those that preceded them and which, in certain cases, were even perverse.
      For example, the hon. Member did not have the heart to refer to the amendments relating to the Audit Commission which would have reversed the trend of the argument that the Opposition deployed at an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings.
      However, we can at least be grateful that the Opposition have added a little variety. In particular, they have added the magical ingredient of the word "appropriate" in several of the amendments. That, in itself, exemplifies some of the difficulties of the Opposition's approach. It is interesting to wonder what "appropriate" means. Is it for the school to decide an appropriate partnership? Will it be for the courts to decide?
      Mr. Don Foster: Given that the Minister is having difficulty understanding the meaning of "appropriate", could he perhaps define the meaning of "appropriate" in clause 6(1)(a) which refers to the need for
      "establishing and maintaining in relation to courses for initial training of school teachers an appropriate balance between school-centred courses and other courses;".
      What is "appropriate" in that context?
      Mr. Boswell: In that case, it will depend on the decisions of the Teacher Training Agency.
      The other points of substance raised by the hon. Member for Oldham,. Central and Royton related to anecdotes about plagiarisation. I am sure that the TTA and accredited courses will pick that up. They also related to the international validity of courses.
      I remind the House that the accreditation of such courses, if they are school-centred, operates on precisely the same basis as those that are higher education institution led. The accreditation process, the quality criteria and competencies derived from the Secretary of State's criteria will be exactly the same. There is no reason why they should not be equally acceptable. Given the quality of delivery in school-centred initial teacher training so far, there is every reason to believe that they will be in excellent demand.
      I should like to consider the substance of the Opposition's case for one last time. As the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton said, that case centres on amendment No. 3, which provides that schools can be funded only if they operate in partnership with a higher education institution.
      Perhaps at this point I can deal with the situation in Northern Ireland. Leaving aside the perfectly reasonable point that it is for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom to determine exactly how to run their own separate education systems, I should record for the benefit of the House that I am advised that, at the moment, higher education is the sole provider of initial teacher training in Northern Ireland. As it has not even embarked on partnership schemes, it is perhaps a little behind our practice in England where partnerships are already a reality. For higher education in Northern Ireland to call for partnerships is to invite its provisions to move towards the position we already enjoy.
      The Government simply cannot accept the Opposition's view that prescribing in law that a partnership between schools and higher education is essential would be the right

      371
      way forward. That would place schools in a subordinate relationship. It would not provide them with an equal and influential part in provision.
      Validation is a simpler concept than partnership. However, we would not have thought so because it took the Opposition rather a long time to discover what it means and to realise that that was what they were talking about, rather than accreditation. However, I do not want to chop words with the Opposition at this stage.
      Imposing validation requirements would be just as unacceptable as imposing partnership requirements. The essential requirement is to have accreditation. That is what will deliver quality in school-centred courses as it will equally, and on all fours, deliver it in higher education led courses. Validation will add no essential ingredient. I will disabuse the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton about his reference to a hidden agenda. The only disguised purpose of validation would be to allow higher education institutions a power to refuse to co-operate. It would therefore keep them in control and, in effect, would abort or frustrate the wishes of school-centred consortiums to move forward.
      That brings me to the central issue of quality. The agency will be a funding body. It will exercise its direction and control through funding. In doing so, it will operate according to the objectives set out in clause 1 which I hope are uncontentious. It will have regard to the criteria set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the kind of teachers we wish to come out of initial teacher training and teacher education.
      Directly as a result of that and in the light of those considerations, the agency will accredit those who provide training in HE and school-centred courses. In doing that, and recalling the extremely helpful debate that we had earlier, the agency will be informed by impartial inspection advice from the Office for Standards in Education about quality. That advice will underpin its funding decisions. It will, therefore, be a vital new guardian of standards in both HE and school-centred courses. Right across the piece, our determination is to achieve quality.
      In inviting the Opposition to consider whether they wish to press the amendments, I said earlier that I felt their underlying concern must be one for continuing higher education provision. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton went on in a rather windy way to talk about our hidden agenda. As the Minister responsible for further and higher education, I believe that the Opposition do not need to fear for the future of higher education institutions.
      Although the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton did not recognise this fact, more than two thirds of students in teacher education are now on undergraduate BEd courses. The hon. Gentleman will know that they cannot become school-centred under the Bill.
      Equally, the Bill does not prevent or preclude universities and colleges of education from offering postgraduate training. Equally, it does not make any schools run training courses; it does not prescribe that they may not involve higher education in the training courses that they and their consortia put together. Clearly, as we emphasised many times in Committee, it will be desirable for them to consider whether to do so, and they will often wish to do so, but it should be a decision for them, just as it should be a decision by the agency, whether to accredit what they do.
      372
      We must emphasise, because it is central to our intentions to secure quality in teacher education and to the principles of diversity in choice, that those are and should remain entirely voluntary decisions. We believe in giving schools more freedom to put together those consortia and to provide those courses. It is, frankly, the Opposition who want to fetter them, and if they persist in pressing their amendments, I shall have to invite my hon. Friends to reject them.
      Mr. Bryan Davies: In view of that wholly unsatisfactory reply, we intend to press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 295.

      Division No. 287]

      [7.10 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Darling, Alistair

      Ainger, Nick

      Davidson, Ian

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

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

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Denham, John

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Dewar, Donald

      Ashton, Joe

      Dixon, Don

      Barnes, Harry

      Dobson, Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Battle, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Eastham, Ken

      Bell, Stuart

      Enright, Derek

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Etherington, Bill

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Benton, Joe

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Berry, Roger

      Fisher, Mark

      Betts, Clive

      Flynn, Paul

      Blunkett, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Boateng, Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Boyes, Roland

      Foulkes, George

      Bradley, Keith

      Fraser, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fyfe, Maria

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

      Galloway, George

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gapes, Mike

      Burden, Richard

      Gerrard, Neil

      Byers, Stephen

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Caborn, Richard

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Callaghan, Jim

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Graham, Thomas

      Canavan, Dennis

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Cann, Jamie

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chidgey, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gunnell, John

      Church, Judith

      Hall, Mike

      Clapham, Michael

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Harvey, Nick

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Doug

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ann

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hoey, Kate

      Corbett, Robin

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Home Robertson, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cummings, John

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Hoyle, Doug

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      373

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hutton, John

      Pope, Greg

      Illsley, Eric

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Ingram, Adam

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jamieson, David

      Prescott, John

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jowell, Tessa

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Redmond, Martin

      Keen, Alan

      Reid, Dr John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Rendel, David

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Lewis, Terry

      Rogers, Allan

      Litherland, Robert

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Rooney, Terry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAllion, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheerman, Barry

      McCartney, Ian

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Macdonald, Calum

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McFall, John

      Short, Clare

      McKelvey, William

      Simpson, Alan

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Skinner, Dennis

      McLeish, Henry

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

      Maclennan, Robert

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Snape, Peter

      MacShane, Denis

      Soley, Clive

      McWilliam, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Madden, Max

      Spellar, John

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Mahon, Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mandelson, Peter

      Stevenson, George

      Marek, Dr John

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Straw, Jack

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Meacher, Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Timms, Stephen

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Milburn, Alan

      Turner, Dennis

      Miller, Andrew

      Vaz, Keith

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Walley, Joan

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Morley, Elliot

      Wareing, Robert N

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Watson, Mike

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Mudie, George

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Murphy, Paul

      Wilson, Brian

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Winnick, David

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Worthington, Tony

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Wray, Jimmy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Olner, William

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Parry, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Patchett, Terry

      Mr. Alan Meale and

      Pendry, Tom

      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkins, Robert

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Amass, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Baldry, Tony

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Ashby, David

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      374

      Bates, Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Beggs, Roy

      French, Douglas

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gale, Roger

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gallie, Phil

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Body, Sir Richard

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Garnier, Edward

      Booth, Hartley

      Gill, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bowis, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gorst, Sir John

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Bright, Graham

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hague, William

      Burns, Simon

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Burt, Alistair

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butcher, John

      Hannam, Sir John

      Butler, Peter

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Harris, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cash, William

      Hawksley, Warren

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Heald, Oliver

      Chapman, Sydney

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Hendry, Charles

      Clappison, James

      Hicks, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Horam, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Congdon, David

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

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

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Couchman, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cran, James

      Jack, Michael

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

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jessel, Toby

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Devlin, Tim

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Duncan, Alan

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dunn, Bob

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Legg, Barry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Leigh, Edward

      Eggar, Tim

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Elletson, Harold

      Lidington, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lord, Michael

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Luff, Peter

      Evennett, David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Faber, David

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Madel, Sir David

      Forman, Nigel

      Maginnis, Ken

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Malone, Gerald

      Forth, Eric

      Mans, Keith

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Marland, Paul

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Marlow, Tony

      375

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Mates, Michael

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Merchant, Piers

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mills, Iain

      Spring, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sproat, Iain

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stephen, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stern, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stewart, Allan

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Sweeney, Walter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Sykes, John

      Norris, Steve

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Thomason, Roy

      Paice, James

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Pawsey, James

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

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Tracey, Richard

      Pickles, Eric

      Tredinnick, David

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Trend, Michael

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Trimble, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Tyler, Paul

      Rathbone, Tim

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Viggers, Peter

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Richards, Rod

      Walden, George

      Riddick, Graham

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Ward, John

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Whitney, Ray

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Whittingdale, John

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Sackville, Tom

      Wilkinson, John

      Salmond, Alex

      Willetts, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wilshire, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shersby, Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Sims, Roger

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 12

      POWER OF SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE COURSES OF INITIAL TEACHER TRAINING
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 6, line 27, at end insert—
      '(1 A) A governing body exercising, or proposing to exercise, any power conferred by subsection (1) above shall, if the number of persons attending any course will exceed, or is in its opinion likely to exceed, such percentage of the school teachers of the schools concerned in the provision of the course as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe, take such steps as are reasonably practicable so to notify—

      (a) the parents of registered pupils at the school,

      (b) the applicants for the relevant course; and

      376

      (c) such other persons as the Secretary of State may by order specify.'.

      The amendment relates to an important issue which caused an interesting debate in Committee. The amendment that we have tabled is somewhat different from the one which was discussed in Committee. It provides for information to be given to all parents and prospective students, and paragraph (c) provides for information to be given to
      "such other persons as the Secretary of State may…specify".
      We would not normally include such a paragraph in an amendment, but we have done so in the hope that we can at last appeal to the Secretary of State for Education, or, indeed, on this occasion the Minister, in the absence yet again of the Secretary of State. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be interested in providing information to parents and would perhaps attend this debate.
      We have raised the issue of information again because we found it difficult to comprehend the -Government's attitude when we debated it in Committee. We think that it is important that Ministers reconsider their position on the vital issue of the information which parents need about important developments in the schools. Undoubtedly, if a school is to undertake school-centred initial teacher training, the impact that that will have on the school is of sufficient importance for the parents of any child in the school to be told of that development. I cannot understand why Ministers rejected that whole concept when it was debated in Committee.
      One reason why I was amazed by the Government's attitude is that, two days before we debated the amendment in Committee, the so-called parents charter was published—a publication which cost £3 million of taxpayers' money and was sent to every home in the country. It provoked a great deal of indignation. I received letters such as this one, which says:
      "I thought you would like to know that I have received two copies (so far!) of the 'Parents charter'.
      It's all utter nonsense and a complete waste of money anyway.
      I am 71 years, with children of 45 and 42!
      I shall be returning both to Mr. Patten, and asking him why so much money is, once again, being wasted."
      Mr. Don Foster: Is the hon. Lady aware that the parents charter not only caused much annoyance, as she has rightly described, and cost some £3 million but was factually inaccurate?
      Mrs. Taylor: I have had correspondence complaining about factual inaccuracies, not least the inaccuracy that parents must send their children to school. In fact, there are provisions for children to be taught at home in certain circumstances.
      Mr. Robin Squire: At the risk of going far wider than the amendment, may I put on record the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, the admirable document thus distributed was not intended as a full summary of legal rights in legal terminology. It was written in an accessible way, which most people welcomed. If people want legal advice, they get it. They would not rely on a booklet of that sort.
      7.30 pm
      Mrs. Taylor: The Minister had a broad smile on his face when he tried that explanation. If the document was not intended to give extensive information, his intervention

      377
      was a confession that it was nothing more than an expensive public relations exercise. Perhaps that is not surprising from a Department that now spends £90 for every £1 that it spent in 1979 on self-publicity. Such publicity is one of the greatest growth areas in public expenditure, as far as the Government are concerned.
      Like many of my colleagues, I have received numerous letters about the parents charter. It was supposed to contain information for parents. At the time, the Secretary of State issued a press release and made statements about the importance of information to parents, yet when we discussed our modest amendment in Committee two days later, Conservative Members were at great pains to talk us down—it was a painful and peculiar argument. When they did not succeed in doing so, they voted down the constructive amendment that we had tabled.
      Then and now, the simple purpose behind our amendments seems to have escaped Conservative Members. In Committee, they seemed unable to decide whether the amendments would enforce on schools some new bureaucratic provision—perhaps the arguments will be used again this evening—or whether they were simply unnecessary because parents would find out about what was happening in schools anyway. The Minister may be indicating which it is, but it is not satisfactory for parents to learn by osmosis about what is going on in schools.
      It is a significant step for a school to embark on teacher training as well as teaching children. I would not be happy if such a development took place at my children's schools and I would certainly not be happy if it took place without my knowledge. Parents have an absolute right to that type of information.
      The Minister is doing something that Members on both sides of the House said was not the way forward: he is rejecting the amendment simply because it was tabled by the Opposition, as he did in Committee. Why else would Ministers, who had talked of the importance of information, put down the idea of giving information to parents? The amendment is not burdensome; it is very practical. As has been suggested, the information could have been extended to all partnership schools. As we said in Committee, we are willing to take that on board.
      Mr. Robin Squire: If, as the hon. Lady reiterates, she would like the provision to be extended to all schools, why is that not reflected in the amendment?
      Mrs. Taylor: This amendment is broader and allows the Secretary of State to make provision for that extension. I should have thought that the junior Minister, who is replying to this debate, would have said that the provisions in paragraph (a) would allow all parents of any pupils involved to be told.
      If the Minister is saying that there is a technical deficiency and that he will embrace the spirit of the amendment, which is the same as the spirit of the amendment that he turned down in Committee, we may be making some progress. We offered the Minister that option in Committee, but he rejected it.
      I had hoped that Ministers would look again at the reports of our debates in Committee, not least because I know that the two junior Ministers present are more reasonable than some of their colleagues in the Department. Obviously, that description does not extend to
      378
      their being allowed to make their own decisions. They have to follow the briefs determined by others, which is rather disappointing.
      If we are to agree that parents should have as much information about their children's education as possible, what was wrong with the amendment that we tabled in Committee? We have tried to adopt the spirit of that amendment here and I hope that the Minister will have a more constructive attitude this evening.
      We included paragraph (b) in the amendment, not merely to keep it in order and give it a different dimension so that we could debate it, but so that we could ask about the provisions for ensuring that prospective students get sufficient information about the number of other students in a school and the full arrangements there, not least because parents can become worried when there are many student teachers in a school at any one time. Most parents do not mind the presence of the occasional student—they welcome it and that is how partnerships have developed. Students have a right to know all the information and that is why we have included that paragraph.
      Parental concern will only increase if information is denied. It is not adequate to say that parents will find out anyway, either from parent-teacher organisations or from parent governors. Their methods of reporting back are not always sophisticated or well developed. It is not good enough just to say that that will happen and that parents will find out. Parents have a right to know what is going on. I want that right to be extended so that they are consulted before courses take place. Forward-looking schools will try to consult parents and to discuss those issues with them before they embark on courses. That would be good practice on the part of the school, and it ought not to divide us.
      I hope that the Minister will not use his prejudices and the fact that the amendment has come from the Opposition to talk it down. Our attitude to providing information to parents ought to be based on the principle that local parents need local information. The provision of such information would be one key plank of the local information that parents should be entitled to, and I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Mike Hall: Following on from what my hon Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said, the principle of the amendment is that parents have the right to know. If the Government accept the amendment, they will be instructing school governing bodies to inform parents of changes that will take place in their schools if they become a centre for initial teacher training for postgraduates. That principle is right and proper, and I hope that the Minister will accept its strength. I hope that he will also accept that, if the amendment is enshrined in the Bill, it will strengthen the information available to parents.
      In Committee, there were no objections, in principle, to the aim of the amendment that we tabled. When the Minister summed up in that debate, he merely pointed out what he thought were the practical objections. I hope that he has had time to reflect on the fact that the principle is the right one. If we need support for the principle, we need look no further than his noble Friend Baroness Blatch, who said:
      "I do not think that any school would embark on a school-centred scheme unless it were able to convince and in due course demonstrate to local parents that the effect was beneficial to their pupils."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 March

      379
      1994, Vol. 553, c. 36.]
      Clearly, that is the right state of affairs. Schools should be able to convince parents of pupils at the school that if they embark on the course it will be good for the school, good for the education that children receive there and good for the students who participate in that form of initial teacher training. I do not feel that there is anything in principle to which the Government could object, and there is a great deal in principle that they should accept.
      If initial teacher training based in schools is good for the students, that is another mechanism by which the Government can promote the benefits of school-based initial teacher training. What better way could there be than to say to parents that the school wants to be involved in the scheme and these are the benefits of it? It is an ideal mechanism to amplify the benefits of the training.
      If schools want to become part of consortia delivering initial teacher training in schools for postgraduate students, that will involve a fundamental change to the school itself. The students will be in school for 24 weeks a year and will be teaching a range of pupils throughout the national curriculum. In itself, that is a fundamental change.
      Parents need to know throughout their children's school career whether they will be subjected to a large percentage of teaching by student teachers. It may well be good, indifferent or awful teaching, because that is the benefit of initial teacher training exercises. The students learn the practicalities of teaching and the skills which go with that. Sometimes they will fail, and sometimes they will succeed. But parents need to know that that is an on-going feature of life at the school.
      The Government should accept the amendment because they should recognise that there will be a fundamental change in the schools themselves. Teachers in those schools will have another job to do. Not only will teachers have to teach; they will have to become mentors for the students in the schools. One of the benefits of the scheme, we are told, is that good teachers pass on their skills to the students in a practical way. The good teachers may be taken out of the classroom and made student mentors, and they will be taken away from the job that they are good at. Parents need to know that that is a potential for the school if it contemplates that change.
      7.45 pm
      If I understand the process right, teachers—in addition to their teaching commitments in schools—will have to devote about 40 hours per student extra time for those students to receive the benefit of their mentors. Amendment No. 22 is absolutely essential so that parents can be told what is going on in schools. Clearly, parents have a right to know and to be informed about major changes in schools. I cannot contemplate many changes in the systems and structures of schools more major than that they become schools where initial teacher training for postgraduate students takes place.
      In Committee, the Minister argued that the Opposition's request would be unduly bureaucratic. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) put it another way and, in a Freudian slip, said that it might be unduly democratic. We think that it was a Freudian slip—we are not sure. There may be other Freudian analyses one could place on what the hon. Gentleman said. He was probably saying the truth, but it was a subliminal intervention. [Interruption.] I shall make no mention of the parentage of
      380
      my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope). He was acutely embarrassed by the suggestion that his father might be the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth.
      I do not think that the measure would be unduly bureaucratic. A requirement to inform parents of a fundamental change does not involve teachers in any bureaucracy—it involves the school's administration in informing parents. The Government cannot hide behind that argument any more. I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will not refer to what have been termed previously "unduly bureaucratic" problems with the amendment.
      We were also told in Committee that the measure may be unduly costly. I am not sure what cost will be involved in informing parents of a change to the situation in schools. I do not think that there is any dispute about the fact that this is a fundamental change, and I do not think that the cost of a postage stamp on a letter to parents to say that the change will take place is over-burdensome. It would be an important step in the right direction.
      Another argument against the amendment is that school-centred initial teacher training would be set aside from the school partnership for teacher training. There would be two different aspects—one provided by consortia, and one provided in partnership with institutes of higher education. Clearly that distinction no longer applies to the way in which amendment No. 22 is worded. All schools contemplating any change in that way will be obliged to tell parents about it. That is another practical argument which has been removed from the armoury that the Minister tried to deploy in Committee.
      We were then told, interestingly, that parents were already involved in decision-making in governing bodies through parent governors. We have been told that it would be up to parent governors themselves to consult parents about whether they needed to know about any change. I do not think that that is good enough.
      I send my son to a school in which consortia are involved in the provision of initial teacher training for postgraduate students. I was not informed by the parent governor that that would take place, nor was I informed by the governing body or by the school hierarchy. I was informed by my wife, who teaches at the school. I had privileged information. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) makes a comment about that from a sedentary position.
      Other parents who send their children to the school do not know that that is going on, and they have a right to know. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to his feet to defend the rights of parents. I know what is going on because my wife teaches at the school. I am quite sure that other parents do not know. We just cannot rely on parent governors to consult their electorate on that issue.
      We have been told that the governing body has a range of important decisions to take, of which this is only one. The decision on whether a school is to get involved in the initial teacher training of postgraduate students is important, and parents ought to know. We were told by the Minister that that suggestion flies in the face of reason. What is unreasonable about asking school governors and governing bodies to inform parents that a change is taking place in the school? There are many reasons for arguing that the Minister was wrong to say that the amendment flies in the face of reason.

      381
      The final argument left in the Minister's armoury was that the measure was a vendetta against one sort of teacher training. Frankly, that is nonsense. The amendment takes cognisance of the fact that the Minister would like to ensure that all schools involved in the scheme are treated in the same way. The amendment attempts to be even-handed.
      It is straightforward, simple, right and proper that parents should be consulted about changes in schools. The amendment gives fact to that desire and principle. I hope that, on this occasion, we do not have matters of practicality placed before the interests of parents. We should give them the right to know what goes on in schools to which they send their children.
      Mr. Pickthall: There are rumours that members of the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) have been seen wandering the corridors of the Palace looking for the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). Judging by the latter's absence, they perhaps found him.
      We had some interesting debates in Committee about the nature of and the right to information. One in particular dealt with the Government's refusal to countenance the Teacher Training Agency passing relevant information to those bodies which might be subject to its decisions. One expected that they would do it, but the Government refused to enshrine that in the Bill.
      The reasons for the amendment have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), so I shall be fairly brief. The amendment hovers around the impact that school-centred initial teacher training will have on pupils and parents in the schools where it applies. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) said in his pious way, in an intervention, that the most important part of the education system was the pupils and their parents. We are glad that he has discovered that, but it surely follows that those are the people who should have the relevant information—pupils when it would be useful to them, of course, but parents in particular, especially those in the process of choosing schools for their children. The nature of those schools could change significantly in the near future.
      The reason why parents need that information—and, I believe, would demand it—is that student teachers present problems, under any system. They add a great deal to schools because they are fresh and new and may have more adventurous ideas than teachers who have been at the same school for some time; but they are bound to disrupt the flow of school work to some extent. That is true of schools with only one or two student teachers, and it will be even more true of schools that take on more of them for longer.
      One of the most useful functions of the higher education sector, which has been derided by some Conservative Members and praised by others, including the Ministers—I give them credit for that—has been its hard work in trying to alleviate the problem of disruption caused by student teachers. As I said in Committee, a teacher at my children's school who had the misfortune to have three students teaching his class in rapid succession was subsequently unable to co-ordinate a proper display for the parents' open evening. That caused some consternation among parents who wanted to know how their children had been affected by the presence of student teachers. As it happened, the students appear to have been competent, and no harm was done.
      382
      Inevitably, teachers—from top to bottom—are distracted to some extent by the presence of students for whom they must be responsible, however seriously they may or may not take that responsibility. Parents need to know the position. One of the factors that make them accept the fact that, for a time, their children will be taught by students is the link with higher education and the knowledge that an attempt has been made to make the children's experience reasonably good.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House have repeatedly supported the idea of partnerships. The evidence from such partnerships shows that schools fear over-exposure of their pupils to student teachers; parents deserve to be able to make a rational judgment about that in advance.
      Although parents are probably the most important recipients of the information that the amendment demands, it also mentions
      "the applicants for the relevant course".
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out, they too are important. Prospective student teachers should be told as much as possible about the quality of the course, its record of success—if it has got that far—and the employment prospects that a consortium course would provide. Paragraph (c) would allow the Secretary of State, by order, to specify other recipients of information, which I think should include local education authorities.
      The organisation of schooling is a complex affair in any area. Despite the general tenor of the education reforms that have taken place in the past 10 years, schools are still interdependent and local authorities must still balance one against another in many respects. In the event of significant changes that could affect the uptake of places, for example, a local authority's relations with schools other than those in the consortium could be disrupted.
      The amendment would also allow information to be passed, as of right, by governing bodies to the higher education institutions that had formerly provided schools with trainee teachers. That could have a significant effect if a consortium were fairly large and, say, 20 students were removed from the ambit of the local college or university. That is the equivalent of one member of staff, or perhaps more. Whatever view may be taken about that particular debate, the higher education institution concerned should be given the relevant information, as should other schools in the area.
      As I have said, schools are not isolated entities. They have links of many kinds with other schools in their areas—not just the links between primary and secondary schools, but those among clusters of schools. The arrival of a SCITT consortium could change all that.
      The amendment is eminently sensible. It requests the free passage of information to the people who are most likely to be affected by the results of the decisions involved, and I should have thought that any Government with the remotest belief in the usefulness of a right to information could not do other than accept it. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) listed the opposing arguments advanced in Committee, and effectively demolished each of them. On reflection, I feel that a very poor argument was put up against a simple and straightforward proposition.
      Mr. Robin Squire: Coming to this discussion for the second time, I shall endeavour—in the light of strictures,

      383
      not least those of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall)—to advance an even stronger argument, and persuade the House to continue its support for my original line.
      The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her team have made a number of attempts, in the form of amendments, to return to the gist of an amendment that was voted down in Committee. I shall not rehearse the details; as hon. Members have recognised, the same principle is involved. We are now debating only one amendment, which seeks to ensure that, when schools are heavily involved in SCITT, information about that is made available to parents and others.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Simple.
      8 pm
      Mr. Squire: As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) says, it is simple. But, as I shall seek to point out, a number of issues lie behind that simple concept.
      First, do the existing channels of information for parents and others—never stronger than at present owing to the Government's reforms—set an adequate framework to ensure that parents and others have the information about school-centred training which they need? We believe that they do.
      Mr. Hall rose—
      Mr. Squire: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me for a few moments longer, I shall seek to develop that argument further.
      Secondly, if more information proves to be required, do we need primary legislation of this rather odd sort to ensure that it is provided? I submit that we do not. And thirdly—as we have asked the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) every time she raises this point—why does she see an unmet need for information about school-centred training but has made no attempt to secure information flows about school-based training? I am sure that she does not seek to make life more difficult for schools that choose to offer their own courses.
      Hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee—one or two are now in the Chamber—may need reminding that, on any reasonable projection, the number of schools and teachers involved in school-centred initial teacher training for the foreseeable future will be but a fraction of the schools and teacher-students involved in school-based training.
      Mr. Hall: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Squire: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) in a moment. As he said in his speech, there is concern about the impact that teacher training would have on schools. If that concern exists, why does not the amendment address the majority instead of just the minority?
      Mr. Hall: The amendment takes account of the precise point that the Minister has just made. It refers to schools in general. If that is the only difference between us, he should table an amendment to cover that point. Paragraph (c) of the amendment covers that by dealing with what the Secretary of State may deem appropriate under the clause.
      Mr. Squire: I like the hon. Gentleman—I hope that that does not cause him significant difficulties back home—but he cannot get away with that. The amendment refers to
      384
      clause 12, which deals specifically with school-centred initial teacher training. Many responsibilities are put on Governments, most of them quite rightly, but it is not a Government's responsibility to assist Opposition Members in putting their amendments in order or redrafting them as they say they wish them to be. The Opposition are entitled to table what they wish, but they must then be judged on the basis of their amendments.
      Mr. Pickthall: Even accepting what the Minister has just said, he must recognise that we are discussing a matter of concentration and quality. He is absolutely right to say that parents of pupils in schools that already have an extension of school-based teacher education are entitled to information on that, but the SCITT schools involve a different concentration of student activity. That is what we have been concerned about throughout most of this afternoon's debate. Does the Minister recognise that there is a qualitative difference between the two?
      Mr. Squire: On the evidence of my contact with both sorts of course, any significant difference lies with whether the school is involved in training, not between school-based and school-centred training. Of course there are differences but the difference which the amendment deals with is more than the difference between whether or not a school is involved. The hon. Gentleman does not have to agree with me in that respect, but I assure him that, on the evidence of my visits and those of others, it is true. The school-centred aspect is not significant; there are differences, small as they are.
      On the adequacy of current information arrangements for parents, parent-governors in all schools have an open line to those who elected them. Each year, the governing body as a whole must report in writing to parents and hold an open meeting to allow face-to-face discussion. The effectiveness of teaching and learning in schools will be reported on publicly every four years via OFSTED inspections. A prospectus is issued each year setting out what a school offers its pupils, which, as well as meeting statutory requirements is, in practice, likely to stress any distinctive features of the school, for obvious reasons.
      Given all of that, how could a school keep the size and nature of its commitment to teacher training a secret? Those running school-centred schemes will not want to do so. They are proud of their commitment to becoming "teaching schools" and publicise it locally not only to show that they have been selected as potential providers of high-quality training, but to encourage local applicants to their courses. School-centred training has absolutely no incentive to hide its light under a bushel.
      If, despite all that I have said, a school appeared to be less than enthusiastic about publicising its involvement and parents failed to have the necessary information, that could be tackled under existing legislation. For instance, we could use the regulation-making powers that govern the content of prospectuses and annual reports if that should ever prove necessary. Moreover, the agency could use its powers under clause 6 to ensure that information about courses that it funds is made available to those who need it.
      We would never make regulations in the simplistic terms suggested in the amendment. The number of students as a percentage of the number of teachers across a consortium says nothing about the degree of teachers' involvement in or pupils' exposure to students in any one

      385
      school. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who was in the Chamber earlier, is an ex-maths teacher. If he were here now, he would confirm that point.
      Were we to go down the route of using regulations or conditions of grant, we should certainly want to treat all forms of teacher training on all fours. For completeness, I should mention how prospective students are to receive information about courses. They, too, will have access to prospectuses, the contents of which may be influenced by the agency under clause 6. Those requirements will bite on all providers of courses—higher education and schools—and allow us to ensure that students have all the information that they need to choose courses.
      I could say more, but I am conscious that the House wants to make progress. I have demonstrated that the amendment is, in practice, unnecessary. I shall leave aside certain mechanical restraints. Despite our differences over other aspects of the Bill, I urge the hon. Member for Dewsbury on reflection to withdraw the amendment on the basis that what it seeks to secure will normally happen. In the event of it not happening, adequate alternative avenues exist. If she insists on pushing the amendment to a vote, I must ask the House to resist it.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I say just a few words in response to the Minister's arguments? This evening he has struggled even more desperately than he did in Committee to defend the indefensible. We know that he is a reasonable man and that his heart is not in such arguments.
      First, the Minister said that providing such information to parents was a simple concept. When we tabled the original amendment in Committee, we thought that that was so and that, on that basis and in view of all that Ministers had said in the parents charter and elsewhere, this might be the one amendment which Ministers would accept. They have struggled to find arguments against it.
      The Minister says that channels already exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) demonstrated that there are significant inadequacies. The Minister attempted to create a smokescreen by creating a division between school-centred initial teacher training courses and school-based teacher education. I conceded earlier this evening, as I did in Committee, that I would prefer all parents in those circumstances to find out what is happening in their schools.
      The difference between school-centred and school-based ITT is significant and parents should understand its full implications. It is not simply that the funding of a school may be affected by any such arrangement but that, if a school embarks on school-centred ITT, it will have significant additional responsibilities for the education of teachers as well as their training and organisational matters, perhaps including co-operation with other schools. Those strains on already heavily stretched administrative services in schools could be significant. How can a governing body guarantee that parents are told at the right time?
      It does no one any good to raise petty objections to this fundamental amendment. Sufficient mechanisms may be in place for informing students; sufficient mechanisms are certainly not in place for informing parents.
      The Minister implied that the Secretary of State could use other powers or that the Teacher Training Agency
      386
      could use its powers. I believe that the House should express its will tonight, and we should say that parents should be informed.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 268.

      Division No. 288]

      [8.09 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Fisher, Mark

      Allen, Graham

      Flynn, Paul

      Alton, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Fraser, John

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Fyfe, Maria

      Ashton, Joe

      Galloway, George

      Barnes, Harry

      Gapes, Mike

      Barron, Kevin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Battle, John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Godsiff, Roger

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bell, Stuart

      Gordon, Mildred

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Graham, Thomas

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Benton, Joe

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Grocott, Bruce

      Berry, Roger

      Gunnell, John

      Betts, Clive

      Hall, Mike

      Blunkett, David

      Hanson, David

      Boateng, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Boyes, Roland

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Bradley, Keith

      Henderson, Doug

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Heppell, John

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

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

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Burden, Richard

      Hoey, Kate

      Byers, Stephen

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Caborn, Richard

      Home Robertson, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cann, Jamie

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Chidgey, David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hutton, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Illsley, Eric

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Clelland, David

      Jamieson, David

      Coffey, Ann

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Connarty, Michael

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Corbett, Robin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Keen, Alan

      Cummings, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Darling, Alistair

      Lewis, Terry

      Davidson, Ian

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Denham, John

      McCartney, Ian

      Dewar, Donald

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Dixon, Don

      McLeish, Henry

      Dobson, Frank

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dowd, Jim

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      MacShane, Denis

      Eastham, Ken

      McWilliam, John

      Enright, Derek

      Madden, Max

      Etherington, Bill

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marek, Dr John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      387

      Martlew, Eric

      Rooney, Terry

      Meacher, Michael

      Rowlands, Ted

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Milburn, Alan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Miller, Andrew

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Short, Clare

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Simpson, Alan

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Skinner, Dennis

      Morley, Elliot

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

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Snape, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Soley, Clive

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mudie, George

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Paul

      Stevenson, George

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Timms, Stephen

      Olner, William

      Tipping, Paddy

      Parry, Robert

      Turner, Dennis

      Patchett, Terry

      Vaz, Keith

      Pendry, Tom

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Pickthall, Colin

      Walley, Joan

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Pope, Greg

      Wareing, Robert N

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Watson, Mike

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Prescott, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wilson, Brian

      Radice, Giles

      Winnick, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Worthington, Tony

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Redmond, Martin

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Reid, Dr John

      Rendel, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Mr. Alan Meale and

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Mr. John Spellar.

      Rooker, Jeff

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Burns, Simon

      Alexander, Richard

      Burt, Alistair

      Amess, David

      Butcher, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Butler, Peter

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ashby, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Atkins, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Churchill, Mr

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clappison, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Baldry, Tony

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Colvin, Michael

      Bates, Michael

      Congdon, David

      Batiste, Spencer

      Conway, Derek

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Couchman, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cran, James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

      Booth, Hartley

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Bowis, John

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Devlin, Tim

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Brazier, Julian

      Dover, Den

      Bright, Graham

      Duncan, Alan

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Dykes, Hugh

      388

      Eggar, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Elletson, Harold

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lidington, David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Evennett, David

      Lord, Michael

      Faber, David

      Luff, Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      MacKay, Andrew

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Maclean, David

      Fishburn, Dudley

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forman, Nigel

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Madel, Sir David

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Forth, Eric

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Malone, Gerald

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Mans, Keith

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Marland, Paul

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Marlow, Tony

      French, Douglas

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Gale, Roger

      Mills, Iain

      Gallie, Phil

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Garnier, Edward

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Gill, Christopher

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Nelson, Anthony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gorst, Sir John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Norris, Steve

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hague, William

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, Richard

      Hannam, Sir John

      Paice, James

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Patnick, Irvine

      Harris, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hawkins, Nick

      Pawsey, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hayes, Jerry

      Pickles, Eric

      Heald, Oliver

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hicks, Robert

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Richards, Rod

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Riddick, Graham

      Horam, John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

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

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Sackville, Tom

      Jack, Michael

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jessel, Toby

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Key, Robert

      Shersby, Michael

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Sims, Roger

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knapman, Roger

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Spring, Richard

      Legg, Barry

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Leigh, Edward

      Stephen, Michael

      389

      Stern, Michael

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Stewart, Allan

      Ward, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sykes, John

      Watts, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Whitney, Ray

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      Thomason, Roy

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Thurnham, Peter

      Willetts, David

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

      Wilshire, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Trend, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Trotter, Neville

      Wolfson, Mark

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Viggers, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Walden, George

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before we move to amendment No. 27, I have to say that I understand that there was a slight technical hitch earlier in that a small Government amendment, amendment No. 1, which should have been moved formally, was not. With the concurrence of the House, I shall put that now.

    Clause 5

      GRANTS, LOANS AND OTHER PAYMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 4, line 11, after 'institution', insert '—

      (i) made by either of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools, or

      (ii)'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

    Clause 22

      ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 13, line 36, leave out 'or more frequently'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 28, in page 14, line 7, leave out 'or more frequently'.
      No. 29, in page 14, line 18, leave out 'or more frequently'.
      Mr. Foster: With this group of amendments we move on from part I of the Bill to part II. Part I was characterised by legislation hastily put together with a considerable lack of consultation and an unwillingness by the Government to listen to the wide range of views and expressions of concern put to them. There is always an exception to the rule and part II of the Bill is that exception.
      Following the ebullient remarks of the Secretary of State at the Tory party conference and the original proposals for part II, the Government have expressed a willingness to listen to the widespread concerns and anxieties put to them. As a result they were willing significantly to reduce the size and complexity of part II, notwithstanding some of the worries expressed, even by Conservative Members, not least the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and some of his colleagues.
      The amendment arises because the Government, having sensibly listened to the views of many people who are concerned about part II, added a number of bits and pieces to that slimmed-down part of the Bill in Committee. They
      390
      have tacked on a number of matters that seem incredibly petty. The legislation has sprouted a range of bureaucratic amendments in Committee. It seems ironic that those additions were made in Committee at the very time that we were debating in the House the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, the purpose of which was to set business free from wasteful and time-consuming bureaucracy. It is sad that the reverse of that has happened as a result of the amendments tabled to part II.
      My amendments refer to just one part of the additional bureaucracy that has been tacked on, particularly in terms of the requirement in the legislation for reports to be brought forward possibly more frequently than once a year. Such a requirement is out of all proportion. If annual reports are all that is required from large commercial companies, it seems peculiar to make it a statutory requirement for a small part of one cost centre out of many in each university to report more frequently.
      It would be largely impossible to produce union accounts more frequently than once a year without extra cost and bureaucracy. Similarly, more frequent information about affiliations—possibly leading to balloting more than once a year on the continuation of affiliations—would be time-consuming and expensive, and would almost certainly lead to a low turn-out and lack of student interest. It would be a shame to include what are, after all, nit-picking requirements that will serve no useful purpose, but could lead to significantly increased costs at the expense of other more valuable student activities. It is difficult to understand the Government's apparent obsession with wanting to determine in such detail how universities should conduct their internal affairs.
      Only today the National Union of Students, in conjunction with the National Westminster bank, has produced a survey, which reveals that nearly 40 per cent. of students in higher education institutions face hardship and poverty. The Government would be far better off tackling the real difficulties faced in higher education at present rather than wasting their time with tokenist bits of legislation to deal with a problem that does not exist.
      There has been a great welcome on both sides of the House and, more importantly, outside the House for the Government's willingness to listen to the many criticisms about their earlier intentions in respect of student unions. It is a pity that, having done that, the Government have tacked on a number of unnecessary bits of bureaucracy. I hope that the amendments will be accepted, thereby slightly reducing the number of unnecessary additions.
      Mr. Graham Riddick: The amendment reflects the concern of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The committee did not have the courtesy to send me a copy of its brief for the Report stage of the Bill, but I have seen a copy of it and I know that the committee has expressed concerns.
      The provisions mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) relate to the financial report, the report listing affiliations to external organisations and the frequency with which current lists of affiliations can be submitted for approval to members. The Bill does not state that those events must take place more than once a year. It simply provides the option so that if the institutions, the students union or the members decide for some reason that they want to report more than once a year, the Bill allows that possibility.

      391
      The letter sent by the chairman of the CVCP to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education complains about the level of detail being inserted into the Bill, particularly into clause 22. The hon. Member for Bath has reflected that concern. The model is not the model of voluntary student union membership that many hon. Members—and, indeed, I think, the Government—would have preferred. But it is the one that the CVCP, through its disproportionate representation in the House of Lords, has managed to insert into the Bill.
      Hon. Members want to ensure that the model will fulfil the objectives that we seek. The overriding objective of the Bill and Conservative Members is to introduce the idea of voluntary membership of student unions. Another clear and important objective is to stop the abuses that have occurred over the years.
      8.30 pm
      Subsection (2)(j), (k) and (1) of clause 22, which the CVCP describes as unnecessarily repetitious, actually makes the activities of student unions more transparent. The majority of students might actually get to know what the student union is doing in their name. For example, in one term Essex university students union affiliated or sent donations to the campaign against racist laws, the baby milk action campaign, the campaign against the war in the Gulf, the campaign against oppression in Iraq and the national abortion campaign. If more students had known about that sort of nonsense, they might have acted to stop it.
      In December 1993, Swansea university students union passed a motion to affiliate to the national abortion campaign. In the same year, Lancaster university spent £100 affiliating to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Again, students and the governing bodies should have every opportunity to get to know about that sort of behaviour. What beggars belief is that in most cases the money that is being used to affiliate or give donations to such organisations comes from the public purse; it is provided by the taxpayer. That is iniquitous.
      Perhaps the most blatant example of political campaigning on taxpayers' funds comes from the National Union of Students itself. As many hon. Members know, at the last general election the NUS set up a campaign called Target 70. The aim was to target 70 key marginal seats with the clear intention of unseating Conservative candidates.
      Mr. Alan Duncan: It failed.
      Mr. Riddick: I have to tell my hon. Friend that after the election the then president-elect of the NUS, Ms Lorna Fitzsimons, boasted of victories in Birmingham and Cambridge. It is important to ensure that that sort of campaign never happens again. The NUS, which is currently trying to promote itself as a moderate and sensible organisation, is actually still involved in that sort of left-wing nonsense.
      The chairman of the CVCP wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister saying:
      "As we have already said to your office we consider these amendments to be a long way from the spirit in which the Bill left the House of Lords."
      He was referring to a number of amendments passed in Committee. The CVCP should recognise the fact that the Bill that left the House of Lords was a long way from the
      392
      spirit of the Bill that the Government wanted, which the 50 Members of Parliament who were present during my Adjournment debate two years ago wanted, and which the 200 Members of Parliament who signed an early-day motion calling for voluntary membership four years ago wanted.
      The CVCP and their Lordships should be aware of the fact that many Members of this House who do not have a vested interest are unhappy with the way in which their Lordships have changed the Bill. If, in practice, this model of student union does not provide genuine voluntary membership and genuine freedom of association, the CVCP and their Lordships will be responsible. If the abuses by student unions and the misuse of public funds continue, the CVCP and their Lordships will be responsible. They should not complain too much if this House tries to tighten up the provisions of clause 22.
      If the Bill fails, at some stage in the future Parliament will have to consider withdrawing public financing from student unions. In the meantime, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recommend rejection of the amendments.
      Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has, not for the first time, spoken with great passion of his concerns for and experience of student unions. I assure him that I shall not recommend acceptance of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
      My hon. Friend, in his perceptive way, spotted the underlying flaw in the amendments. He quoted from a letter I received from the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Dr. Ken Edwards. In fact, the concern that he expressed in that letter is mirrored in the amendments. It is based on a misconception, as I shall explain in a moment.
      First, I must make it clear for the record that the provision to allow information to be issued more than once a year was not added in Committee. That flexibility was present when the Bill came to this House from another place and had been considered there. Therefore, we have added nothing new in that respect.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley raised wider concerns. We have sought to introduce a Bill under the constraints within which we operate, in a way that embodies the firm principles set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his statement to the House 12 months ago. We strongly believe that the amendments made in Committee—a number of them in response to concerns expressed by my hon. Friend—have strengthened and improved the Bill. They will not involve any excess of or increase in bureaucracy.
      The hon. Member for Bath referred to the tangential matter of the hardship survey published by the NUS and others today. I remind him that the authoritative survey carried out every three years by our Department, with the co-operation of the NUS, was last published in December and, not to put it too highly, its findings and the drop-out rate, which has been broadly stable, are not consistent with the assertion in the new survey that there is widespread hardship and a greater propensity to drop out. That needs to be put on the record because we continue to provide uninterrupted funds, which we believe are sufficient for the purpose.
      The effect of the amendments, if not the intention of the hon. Member for Bath, would be to restrict to an annual

      393
      basis the publication of student union financial reports, details of external union affiliations and approval of the current list of affiliations by union members. That would be restrictive and there would be no advantage in it. The existing provisions in the Bill, which were inherited from another place, give governing bodies the choice of when to publish financial reports of student unions and details of their external affiliations and when to submit current lists of external affiliations for approval of union members, provided that it is done at least once a year. There are special provisions for fresh affiliations, which were discussed during an earlier stage of the Bill.
      There is one practical difficulty with the amendments, which is germane to the reason we wish to reject them. If an institution and a union wished to alter their accounting period by having a short catch-up period—so that they could alter their reporting year end in the way that a company can from, say, the end of the fiscal year in April to the end of the academic year in July—they could not do so because, under the amendments, there would be some rather wooden provision requiring them to continue for a whole year.
      We envisage the annual publication requirement as the minimum necessary, but the actual frequency of reporting should be a matter for local determination. To put it another way—and those hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember my reference to modal verbs—the issue is whether the particular conjunction is disjunctive or conjunctive.
      Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because it may help to save time. Will he give an assurance that the Government will at no stage place a requirement on institutions to provide a report more than once a year?
      Mr. Boswell: I was asked to give an assurance that there would be no such power, and I give that assurance. I also give the assurance that there will be no pressure. It is entirely a matter for the institution. Our proposals provide the necessary and maximum flexibility in the requirement that there should be an annual publication. It is up to institutions whether they wish to report more frequently in the light of local circumstances. Student attendance may differ from the conventional academic year and it might be appropriate, therefore, to report in a different cycle. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's intentions, which I appreciate were honourable, the effect of his amendments would be not to reduce, but to increase bureaucracy and not to increase but to reduce flexibility. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw them in the light of my assurances.
      Mr. Foster: I am delighted by the assurances that have been given. I would like to take issue with the Minister's comments about the two surveys to which he referred, but I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would rule that out of order. I welcome those assurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 22

      REQUIREMENTS TO BE OBSERVED IN RELATION TO STUDENTS' UNIONS
      Mr. Duncan: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 14, line 35, at end insert—
      '(2A) The union should return to students who are not or have ceased to be members any fees or grants paid by them or on their behalf or by the institution, in proportion to the part of the academic year for which the student is not a member.'.
      The choice that the Government have extended to so many areas of life has not been extended to students. Student unions remain a closed shop—a fact that has been adequately debated in Committee—and the opt-out that has been granted to students is inadequate. The absence of choice is an insult to students and it would be compounded if this little, simple amendment were not passed today.
      At the beginning of any academic year, a grant is made per capita to the student union, but if, in the exercise of his opt-out, a student were to withdraw his support for the student union, there is no mechanism for the return of any part of his subscription to the source from which it came. If the student were to cease to be a student, he still would not receive such a rebate. Once the subscription is made to the student union, it is there for the whole academic year, regardless of whether the student wants to opt out of membership of the student union or leaves the university altogether. That is inequitable.
      This simple straightforward amendment would provide a pro rata rebate for the period in which the student did not wish to be a member of the student union or did not attend the university and it would remedy the situation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is a sensible Oxford man, will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Enright: Is it not interesting that the Secretary of State, whom we all saw preening himself on television declaiming to the Conservative party conference what he would do about student unions, has not been present for a single part of the debate on the National Union of Students? That is shoddy and disgraceful. I do not just keep my thoughts to myself but say them openly.
      The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) should be withdrawn at once. It is a disgrace. One needs to tidy up institutions from time to time and no institution is perfect, but it is wrong to suggest that the things that the NUS has done wrong are of such an order that a Bill is required to crush it—I pray to the Lord that it will be turned down.
      What lies behind the hostility of the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is worrying. I have already examined in Committee the problems of the hon. Member for Colne Valley. He used to like people when he came here—it says so in his Who's Who entry—but he does not like people any more; he has taken that out of his entry.
      8.45 pm
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I inquire what relevance that has to the amendment?
      Mr. Enright: I am attempting to look into the psychology of hon. Members who would table such petty amendments to what is already a rather petty Bill. I am trying to suggest that their motives are unworthy and not consistent with the aims of hon. Members.

      395
      The hon. Member for Colne Valley is a strong and unashamed supporter of the Economic League, yet he and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton talk about choice. Choice for students—
      Mr. Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this without further assistance. The purpose of the debate is to discuss the merits or otherwise of the amendment or amendments under consideration. I do not believe that an investigation of the psychology of hon. Members who may have tabled the amendments falls within that category.
      Mr. Enright: I am saying that—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I know what the hon. Gentleman is saying; I am suggesting that it is not relevant.
      Mr. Enright: I am talking about choice, which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned in moving his amendment. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I, for example, had no choice about the fact that the insurance company to which I was signed up contributed to the Economic League. To suggest, therefore, that students have some choice is wrong.
      What is even worse is that the amendment should be proposed at a time when, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) suggested, students are genuinely suffering. Students in my constituency need the NUS and the solidarity—I use that word unashamedly—of that organisation to get by. The National Westminster bank has shown that one in three students is thinking of leaving. That is certainly true in my area. As hon. Members know, as from next September, 30 per cent. of the grant will be cut from students—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is not in order. Unless he comes to order soon, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
      Mr. Enright: I am suggesting that unless we have the solidarity of the NUS, which the amendment seeks to destroy in pettifogging fashion, a number of my constituents will suffer severely. I should like to outline those difficulties to show how they suffer. If, Madam Deputy Speaker, you rule that that is out of order, I shall sit down, but that is the purport of what I am trying to do.
      The people in my constituency cannot be supported by their parents. One in three of the men are out of work and are seeking work.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but that goes far beyond the scope of the amendment. We are dealing with fairly narrow points. This is one single amendment and I fear that it will not bear the amount of weight that the hon. Gentleman seeks to put on it. I now call Mr. Graham Riddick.
      Mr. Riddick: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall attempt to speak to the amendment. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), with whom I have always got on perfectly well, has not done himself any favours this evening. I suppose that it was mildly amusing when he ran through my history and my curriculum vitae in Committee, but it is not very funny the second time round.
      The hon. Gentleman was talking about the National Union of Students, but I do not believe that my hon. Friend
      396
      the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) so much as mentioned that body once during his speech. In fact, the amendment does not affect the National Union of Students to any great extent. Neither my hon. Friend nor I say that students should not be allowed to belong to the NUS. If they want to belong, of course they can. That is what we stand for; we believe in choice. The hon. Member for Hemsworth was somewhat off beam, but perhaps he is a bit off form today; perhaps this is a bad day for him. We shall put his performance down to that.
      Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will remember that I initiated a debate on the practicality of the students' new-found freedom to choose whether to belong to a student union. I am pleased that the Bill introduces the element of choice to student unions, so that students who do not wish to belong can choose not to do so.
      In my view it has always been nonsensical that young people who wish to study at institutions of higher education have had to belong to student unions, especially as some of those unions have done and said the most ridiculous and extreme things in the name of all students—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not fall into the same trap as another hon. Member did. He, too, must address himself to amendment No. 23.
      Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is that I want the principle of voluntary membership of student unions to be absolutely genuine.
      The original Bill, which gave students the opportunity to opt into student union membership, provided genuine choice, but sadly the House of Lords had other ideas. Because we now have a different approach to the Bill, I shall argue that there is a case for allowing students to have a rebate of fees. That is what the amendment is about. We must ensure that the principle of voluntary membership is meaningful, and that students have a genuine choice. Under the current provisions of the Bill, they may not have such a choice.
      My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that we had a debate about whether students who have opted out should continue to have access to the facilities provided by student unions. He could not accept my amendment, which would have set that principle in tablets of stone.
      Mr. Gunnell: The hon. Gentleman has already commented on the view of the clause taken by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Does he not agree that the amendment would add yet more detail to what is already an extremely detailed clause? It is already 124 lines long, even before we add the amendment and lengthen it even further. The CVCP described the clause as otiose and unworkable. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that paying back subscriptions halfway through the year would add more unworkable detail? Does he not agree with the CVCP that there is already an awful lot of administration involved in universities, without adding further administrative details in a clause that does nothing worth while?
      Mr. Riddick: I should have thought that it had become clear that I do not altogether agree with the approach of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The amendment is fairly small, and I think that it would fit into the Bill rather well, actually.

      397
      I was about to argue that if the Bill does not say that all students will have access to the facilities of the student union even if they opt out, the amendment offers an alternative approach, whereby any student who opts out would receive a proportion of the money paid by his institution to the union on his behalf. At the moment the problem is that, when a student opts out, he not only opts out of what he probably wanted to opt out of—the political campaigning activities of the union—but forfeits his right to use the student union facilities.
      Mr. Don Foster: Following the logic of his argument, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a student who opts out of attending lectures should be entitled to a fee rebate for the lecture course, and that a student who opts out of using the library should get a rebate, too?
      Mr. Riddick: I suppose that that is the sort of stupid intervention that one would expect from the Liberal Democrats.
      The sums paid by institutions to student unions vary significantly from institution to institution. If the money were paid to the student who opted out that would provide a tangible gain for him. Indeed, a fees rebate would mean that a student's choice whether to leave the student union would be based on a reasoned judgment of whether he could get better value from other student bodies or outside bodies, as well as on issues of conscience. Certainly it would give the student unions a real incentive to retain student membership—and they could do that by providing good-quality services and by being more responsible and representative.
      Therefore, if students opt out of student union membership, either they should receive the proportion of the fee paid to the union by the institution on their behalf, or alternatively, if the money continues to be paid to the union, they should be permitted continued access to the union facilities.
      If the Minister cannot accept the amendment I hope that he will spell out clearly the fact that the Government expect student unions to allow students who opt out of union membership to continue to use the facilities. Indeed, we made some good progress on that point in Committee, because several Labour Members went so far as to agree with that. It is important that my hon. Friend the Minister, and perhaps the Opposition spokesman, will reinforce that point again. The amendment is about giving genuine choice to students, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give a positive response.
      Mr. Bryan Davies: That it should come to this: that the carnivores of the Conservative right wing should be reduced to tabling an amendment as meek and mild as this, trying to attack student unions on the basis of some concept about rebates.
      I may add that Conservative Members should show a little delicacy when talking about the openness with which funds are used by significant bodies. We are all too well aware of the fact that they are members of an association, a political party, that is staggeringly coy about donations, whether given or received. One would have thought that there would have been an element of delicacy in the drafting of such an amendment.
      There are several real anxieties about the amendment, and I shall put them in straightforward terms to the hon.
      398
      Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). First, I know that he is thinking of the model of the large, aggressive, politically challenging major university union, immensely damaging to Conservative interests and campaigning on education issues. But the reason why such a union may operate against Conservative interests is contained in the policies that the hon. Gentleman has supported and the Government have carried out.
      I remind the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that there are other student unions as well. For example, in further education colleges the contributions per student may be about £1.20 per year. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should put into legislation a requirement that when a student leaves a college for some reason, or withdraws from the student union, or does not participate as fully as he wishes, he will be able to claim back a fraction of that £1.20? Is he saying that the institution would have to set up some machinery whereby that fraction of £1.20 should be refunded? Of course not. It is ludicrous nonsense and it reflects the fact that some Conservative Members are more concerned with indulging their ideological predispositions than with looking at the reality of education.
      What kind of organisations do Conservative Members belong to or can they reflect upon which can budget easily on the basis of people being able to withdraw their subscriptions over part of a year? It would be extremely difficult for most organisations to cope with that if they were anything like significant employers. Many student unions have quite large turnovers and employ professional staff. How would they cope if there were a withdrawal of a substantial amount of resources midway through the year?
      It should be recognised that, of course, the student union grant is a block grant for all facilities. Although the student may wish to withdraw himself from certain functions of the student union, the amendment's intentions would be extremely difficult to implement when that student still had access to services provided by the student union, such as heating and lighting of a building, health and safety provisions, insurance, and so on. How would it be possible for an institution to prevent some students from benefiting in part from some of the generalised services, while seeking to refund them for services which they no longer accept?
      I shall address the following point to the Minister as well. I have no doubt that the model that the Government have in mind in this aspect of the Bill is a group of people of political principle who decide that the student union has pursued an action which they no longer wish to support and the Government deem that such groups ought to have the democratic right to withdraw. We all respect such a model because it has a democratic concept behind it.
      The worry is that, apart from people withdrawing from the student union on such political grounds, we may see minority groups of students withdrawing for a whole range of different reasons. Obviously, there are many ethnic minorities in our student bodies. They may want to withdraw from the student union on the grounds that it provides certain facilities which they would like to see provided in a slightly different way. They might want more no-smoking areas or areas where people could be quiet, or provision to be made for a particular diet in the refectory. If the student union fails to provide such facilities, the Bill puts an obligation on the institution to make good any deficit.

      399
      9 pm
      I ask the Minister to consider that point seriously, because there are anxieties that higher education institutions will have burdens placed on them as a result of opting out by students, which have not been envisaged up to now—certainly not in the arguments put forward by the Minister. That shows how difficult this part of the Bill is. Therefore, if the Minister accepts the complicating, unhelpful amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and, somewhat predictably, supported by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), he will be piling additional burdens on an area of the Bill that I and many people involved in education to a much greater extent than I am already foresee leading to untold trouble for our institutions in ways that the Government have not recognised.
      Mr. Boswell: This has been an interesting debate, which has enabled us to clarify a number of issues of principle and of detailed application of the proposed legislation. I should let the House know at the outset that I do not propose to advise my hon. Friends to accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), although I understand the spirit and sentiment in which he has moved it. I shall outline the ways in which we are addressing his concerns and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) in a moment.
      I shall deal first with the comments made by Opposition Members. Frankly, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) was somewhat below his best. He was particularly ungracious in his remarks about the Secretary of State and somewhat hysterical in his remarks about the general position of students.
      No one is pretending that everything in the garden is lovely for students or that they have ample and huge funds. Of course that is not the case. Nevertheless, the real value of the package available to them is maintained year by year in terms of what they have to spend while they are students. Moreover, when one measures the drop-out rate on an objective basis, one sees that it is not generally increasing. I should add that for the past four years we have included the access funds as well. That is immensely useful in meeting the concerns of students who are in difficulties. The funds are administered by the institutions.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) gave tongue to his concerns and, understandably, expressed his personal anxieties about the amendment. He talked about the various types of provision and the wide range of facilities offered by student unions from the large, professionally staffed ones to those that are run on a shoestring, perhaps in further education colleges. The hon. Gentleman could have given the example of an Oxford or Cambridge junior common room. We acknowledge that there is a wide range of provision.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton invented, perhaps, a Government model and suggested that we saw a group of politically motivated persons, or people not necessarily motivated by any other sentiment than dissatisfaction with their union, exercising their right of choice and opting out. The hon. Gentleman argued against that and said that there could be a series of principled withdrawals to force changes of provision or to avail those concerned of the provisions of the clause.
      The anti-discrimination or unfair disadvantage provisions that we debated in Committee are exactly what they
      400
      are set out to be. They are directed to institutions or unions which set things up in a way that creates an unfair disadvantage for students. These provisions enable a group of students to claim that they are being unfairly disadvantaged. They do not prescribe that there should be exact equivalence. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton knows that elsewhere in the Bill we have provided that institutions are required to give details of the services that they offer, both through the student union channel and outside it. It should be possible, therefore, to make an informed choice.
      I have followed some of the speculation that has ensued and I seek to convince the House that it is somewhat alarmist. I assure the hon. Gentleman, if I did not make it clear earlier, that we have received a number of comments from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It is my intention to reply to the committee's letter and my reply will be on the record by the time those in another place complete their consideration of the Bill.
      I assure my hon. Friends that I understand the sentiments underlying the amendment to which they spoke. It is important in principle that students who choose not to belong to a union should not have to pay for services that they do not receive. They should not have to pay for the cake, as it were, and not receive the biscuit.
      The Government have given an undertaking that public funding from which institutions provide services to students will not be altered or reduced on account of the reforms set out in the Bill. Institutions need that funding to maintain services for opted-out students.
      It might be for the convenience of the House if I mention briefly the various channels—the audit trail, as it were—along which public money flows and makes its way through the system. The moneys come from the Government to the funding council. They move from the funding council to the institution and onwards to the student union. At no stage is there an earmarked amount of Government funds for the student union. Nor is such funding contingent on a particular level of union membership.
      When we reach the levels of the institution and the student union, there is an intermingling of private sources of funds, which must be taken into account. As has been said, an institution may typically give a block grant to a student union without earmarking it, for example, as £X to the rugby club, £Y for the debating society, and so forth. It is a highly unhypothecated system and we would not seek to intervene in the process.
      Having said that, however, I agree with my hon. Friends that the right to choose whether to belong to a student union is central to our student union reforms. It was on the front of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a year ago. It requires—and we are determined to ensure that it achieves—a real choice. Indeed, that is exactly the point in respect of which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton led his amendment. It is no good just talking about the voluntary principle: there must be a real exercise of choice. That must mean that those who decide not to join the union must not face such a loss or disadvantage as to render it a hollow option. We therefore amended the Bill to ensure that there would be no unfair disadvantage as a result of making that choice.
      There are bound to be differences between union and non-union members. For example, students who opt out cannot expect to take part in elections. We explored that point in Committee. Opting out cannot be cost-free.

      401
      However, students should be able to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of membership, with due transparency, knowing what they will get and without fear of discrimination or loss of access to important services.
      We have already discussed with the representative bodies the importance of ensuring that services remain available to non-members. To underpin that, we have confirmed that institutional budgets will not be reduced on account of the number of students opting out. We have also discussed with those representative bodies the principle—and this relates closely to the amendment—of fair treatment of self-financing students who opt out, and the institutions understand that point.
      Where self-financing students opt out, but continue to receive services through the union, institutions will need to decide whether a reduced fee, in proportion to any reduction in services, would be fair and appropriate. We do not think that it is appropriate to require the diversion of money used at present to provide services for all in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton suggests. We believe that that is too prescriptive. It is also a little too negative.
      From the discussions that we have had and the assurances that we have received, we expect that institutions will wish to continue to provide services for all students, including those who opt out. They may be provided in several ways, either separately or on an agency arrangement through the student union. However, we expect institutions to continue to provide those services and they will therefore need to retain the funds in their hands to ensure that those services are maintained.
      We believe in a real principle of choice and I am at one with my hon. Friends in that regard. That is extremely important. We believe in non-discrimination and fairness in the way matters operate. We believe in transparency so that people know where they are. We understand from the institutions their readiness to continue to provide services for all students, with the qualifications that I have given, but on the basis of non-discrimination or unfair disadvantage.
      Mr. Bryan Davies: May we be clear about this? I understand that where it can be readily identified that funds have been reserved because students have opted out, a deduction can be made from the contribution to the student union. However, there will clearly be a loss of economies of scale. It will be extremely difficult to quantify and to separate certain services in those terms. Will institutions therefore be able to look to the Government for supplementary resources to take account of the fact that the grant saved will be insufficient to make up for the deficit in facilities that will occur?
      Mr. Boswell: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's seductive premise, nor his conclusion. In most cases, as I have already said, institutions wish to continue the services. We have received that set of assurances from the institutions, so the point about economies of scale would probably not arise in practice. On the hon. Gentleman's conceptual point, I have already made it clear that this is not hypothecated money. Any particular needs of institutions at any one time will be considered on their
      402
      merits by the respective funding councils in the light of the resources that we make available to that funding council. I can give the hon. Gentleman no clearer assurance than that.
      We expect the services to continue. We believe in the principle of a free, real and transparent choice. For those reasons, although I fully understand the spirit in which my hon. Friend moved the amendment, I invite him to withdraw it, as we are not able to accept it.
      Mr. Duncan: In view of my hon. Friend's continents, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.14 pm
      Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I commend the Bill to the House for its very clear merits. Part I establishes a specialist agency to facilitate teacher training, with very clear and commendable objectives, which are set out in clause 1, to contribute to raising the standards of teaching, to promote teaching as a career, to improve the quality and efficiency of all routes into the teaching profession, and to secure the involvement of schools in all courses and programmes for the initial training of school teachers.
      Only those blinded by prejudice or, perhaps, crippled by excess conservatism, could suggest that such a body will be anything other than a force for good in such an important sector. We believe unashamedly in the concept of a specialist, dedicated body with a specific remit to raise quality and standards in teacher training, and we will deliver it through the Bill.
      On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that the Opposition would focus on school-centred training in later debates. My word, in that respect alone she was certainly right. Most effort in Committee was spent by the Opposition on a stubborn defence of the right of universities to hold the ring on teacher training—in effect, to decide whom to let in as competitors to their own provision. We tried hard to convince the Opposition that our purpose was to provide a measure of choice and diversity. We did not seek to subvert higher education provision of teacher education. We seek to provide an alternative which will be judged on its merits and will be accredited by the same body.
      This House has made very clear on Second Reading, in Committee and today its views about our concept. It has endorsed the principles of choice and diversity within a framework of high quality, as now reflected in the Bill. It could not accept the unclear words that were added to the Bill in another place, and it also chose not to accept any of the many alternatives that were offered by Opposition Members with the same purpose of, in effect, compelling the participation of higher education in school-centred initial teacher training. We have no objection to its involvement; but we do not compel it to take place. That has been the substance of the matter, although it was only briefly touched upon.
      Inevitably, the Committee stage, which was good-natured, highlighted a number of different and interesting perspectives on the provision of teacher education. Many of us will have enjoyed hon. Members' contributions, and I hope that we have learnt something from them. On the

      403
      whole, it has been a valuable and good-natured series of discussions, even if we were unshakeable, as we felt we should be, on the main principle which I have discussed.
      In the relatively long hours of a Committee stage, it is usually possible to find out a number of points about the Opposition's policies. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not possible at the Dispatch Box to question the Opposition about the conduct of their policies from time to time. I was slightly disappointed with the responses of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and her hon. Friends. In spite of our questioning, we did not hear whether she supported the boycott of tests by one out of six teacher unions. We were hoping to hear about that but we did not. Can the hon. Lady tell us now?
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: Can the Minister tell us where that is in the Bill?
      Mr. Boswell: A lot of parents will want to know what the hon. Lady and her party think about it.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister, like other hon. Members, must adhere to the proper rules. The rule is that on Third Reading one debates what is in the Bill.
      Mr. Boswell: Indeed. I was extremely interested in a number of other issues that were not raised in Committee, such as grant-maintained schools and specialised teacher assistance, which come within the concerns of quality and choice in teacher training.
      It is interesting—and I give due credit to Opposition Members—that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) did not turn up during our considerations today, despite his emphasis on education. He expressed a certain interest in teacher assistance, which I thought was coming at least a little bit our way on that matter. I shall be strictly fair to the hon. Gentleman. We agreed on one point which was entirely germane to the Bill, and it came out clearly from it. He said that he welcomed the proposal—as I do—by the National Union of Students to seek charitable status. I hope that that proposal—painfully slow as it always is, because it must be painstaking-will proceed. That will be a positive gain from the Bill, as will the detailed provisions of the student union clauses we have been discussing.
      For the most part, I felt that on the central issue of teacher training, we all aspire to securing quality, but we must find practical means and effective delivery to ensure that we get it. The hon. Lady and her colleagues showed only the splendour of unreconstructedness.
      Part II of the Bill secures much greater accountability in the working of student unions and real choice about whether they can join, should join or choose to join those bodies. Those sound principles are not the subject of dispute. The Bill includes a good and workable method of putting them into practice, precisely in line with the objectives and principles that my right hon. Friend set out last year.
      In part II, we have a structure which was introduced with common consent in another place. It provides a framework of good practice for universities and colleges to implement without bureaucratic interference from the centre; and each in its own appropriate way. We have in this place made some improvements which are designed to ensure that the choice for students on whether to belong is
      404
      real and, as promised before the Bill left another place, to enhance the information provisions to increase transparency.
      Put simply, I believe that the Bill should pass into law as soon as possible to allow its full benefits of extending choice and raising quality to be realised. I hope that those in another place will be able swiftly to endorse the amendments that this House has made in the spirit of greater choice and accountability, in which they were clearly intended.
      9.22 pm
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: We should welcome back the late Secretary of State, who clearly could not be bothered to turn up for much of the debate. Perhaps that is not surprising because he does not know the Bill well, not having served on the Committee. It would have been interesting to hear his swansong this evening, but it was not to be.
      I shall take up a point made by the Minister when he said that we concentrated most of our attention in Committee on part I of the Bill. That is true. I intend to concentrate most of my brief remarks this evening on part I as well, because I regard it as the most important part of the Bill and, in a sense, because I am charitable by nature and do not want to add to the humiliation of Ministers, especially when they have already been reminded of the rhetoric about student unions which has been used by the Secretary of State on other occasions. Perhaps the Secretary of State has suffered sufficient humiliation recently without our repeating some of his more extravagant statements from the Tory conference.
      Unfortunately, the Secretary of State missed the comments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), to whom I shall certainly give way.
      Mr. Riddick: A significant number of teachers who are members of the National Union of Teachers will be directly affected by part I of the Bill. Will the hon. Lady join me in urging those NUT members to stop their boycott of tests?
      Mrs. Taylor: Even the hon. Gentleman's intervention is too contrived to be in order on this occasion. Perhaps he would be interested in reminding his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of what he said earlier, while his right hon. Friend was absent. The hon. Member was reminding us that part II of the Bill was a long way from "the spirit" of the original Bill. He said that by way of complaint. Opposition Members very much welcome that change in the Bill, however. This is one occasion on which the other place did a very good job of improving legislation that was seriously flawed.
      In the very brief time that I wish to take, I shall remind the Minister of some of the questions that are still important and which he should be reminded of before the Bill is granted its final passage through this House.
      First, I should repeat what Opposition Members said in the Standing Committees on other education Bills. It is wrong when quango after quango is appointed by the Secretary of State alone, and that situation cannot continue. I say that as a shadow Secretary of State, as one who would very much like to sit on the Government Benches, and as one who would not always want the Secretary of State's powers to be curtailed.

      405
      We really need a system that is not so open to political abuse. The system that we have suggested, in which members of national educational quangos would be approved by the Select Committee on Education, is one which a serious Government and people who are seriously interested in democracy ought to take further.
      Secondly, on the pace of change, the Secretary of State once said that change in education should be evolutionary and not revolutionary. During the past two years, as far as I can see, he has done nothing to ensure that that is the case. We have had rapid change on rapid change, which is causing serious concerns in education, as is the fact that the Government are going ahead with this legislation before the results of the pilot scheme have been announced.
      Other specific questions were not answered in Committee and were not touched on today, such as the European validity of the qualifications that prospective teachers will get from courses. That is an extremely important question and one which Ministers ought to be willing to answer, for the sake of the prospective students
      Also, the Minister never told us why the Government are taking these first steps to deprofessionalise teaching, when other Ministers are moving in the opposite direction, for example with nursing.
      The central consideration must be quality—whether any of the measures in the Bill will improve, or have the potential to damage, the quality of teachers. Our concerns remain. They have not been dealt with adequately throughout our debates on the Bill.
      The Minister said that we were stubborn in our defence of universities, but that is not the case. We are stubborn in our defence of the principle of partnership. Teachers should have both higher education and practical experience. In Committee, both Ministers frequently praised that partnership, and it should be an essential part of the provision. The principle of partnership should therefore be incorporated in the Bill.
      Ministers have heard on other occasions the information about schemes that have been tried in the recent past. Mention was made this evening of the role of OFSTED. Ministers will recall the OFSTED report on the articled teacher scheme, which said that the degree of inconsistency in the scheme was more evident than in conventional postgraduate certificate of education courses.
      That potential for inconsistency, a reduction in quality and a patchiness—with qualifications that do not mean what the students might think they mean—are at the heart of our concerns about the Bill. Ministers have said that we have not provided all of the solutions. Perhaps a Bill that starts off in a confrontational way without a proper consultation and which is rushed through is not one that is open to much constructive amendment. We did attempt constructive amendment, and we tried to concentrate on quality issues.
      We tried to resolve the dilemma that Government Members often seem to face of not being quite sure whether they think most teachers are rubbish or are doing a good job. We saw that dilemma with the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), who was somewhat scathing in many of his comments.
      From Second Reading onwards, we have suggested many of the issues that should be developed and looked at with regard to teacher education. The need for a core
      406
      curriculum and the issue of special educational needs were discussed, and there should be—I think that there could be—cross-party agreement on what is needed for prospective teachers. We talked about the need for better induction, better support teachers and more in-service training.
      Ministers seemed to have fixed minds from the start. We got the impression in Committee that the Ministers saw the merits of many of our arguments and, left to their own devices, might have been able to come up with some modest amendments which could have improved the Bill. The Bill could damage teacher education in this country seriously, and could thereby damage the educational opportunities for our children.
      I end by reminding the House of what the Secretary of State said on another occasion. He said that if we legislate in haste, we can repent at leisure. The Secretary of State may have a lot of leisure for his repentance, but, in the meantime, our children's education could be damaged.
      9.32 pm
      Mr. David Jamieson: The Bill came from the Lords to the House of Commons in a tattered state with bits taken off it. It staggered through Committee and tonight it has come to us for its final stages here. The two Ministers tonight—the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the education world—have not only been singularly unconvincing but also singularly unconvinced in what they told the House.
      I asked myself tonight whether I would buy a used car from either of the two Ministers. They wax lyrical about the vehicle of change which they have presented in the Bill, but I would not buy a Ford Anglia from those guys. They have sold us a horse and cart from the monitorial age, and we have teacher training which comes from the "learning at Nelly's knee" syndrome.
      Like so many of the Government's education policies and so many other Tory policies, the measure was spawned by denigrating, destroying and undermining all that is good at the moment. The Government create a climate in which almost any change and policy put forward can be accepted. We know where the policies come from. They come from the Centre for Policy Studies and from the pen of Sheila Lawlor, and that is how the Bill has come to pass.
      It was spawned in response to the sort of scare stories that we heard from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady O. Maitland), whom I notice has been very much absent from this debate. Here we have a solution to the problem of teacher education that is still looking for the problem.
      Where is the massive support for this proposal? I have travelled around the country with the Select Committee on Education, and one sight that I have not seen is parents marching with banners reading "We want more students clogging up our children's classes."
      Let us consider one or two of the practicalities of the Bill. Opposition Members want broad-based teacher education: we believe that all teachers need practical experience, but that experience should be gained in several schools. Many students are currently trained in only one or two. We also believe that their education should be underpinned by theory, and placed in a context of knowledge.
      A good teacher training course should include some element of the history of education, and provide knowledge of how children learn and an understanding of

      407
      the social context in which they live. Moreover—as the Secretary of State will doubtless agree—student teachers should learn about the national curriculum, testing and many of the other measures introduced by the Government.
      How will the Teacher Training Agency and the new teacher training scheme work? The Select Committee—and no doubt other hon. Members who have visited schools around the country—encountered a common criticism. The expression that we heard so often from heads and governors was "innovation overload": because too many changes and new ideas had been imposed at the same time, teachers had been bogged down with paperwork and bureaucracy—ticking forms, filling in boxes and dealing with the shifting ground of an ever-changing national curriculum, sometimes with poor facilities. On top of that, they are having to write courses for teacher trainees.
      Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Jamieson: I would, but I do not wish to subject the House to the banalities that the hon. Gentleman's interventions usually contain.
      If individual schools, or clusters of schools, are to take on groups of students, what is to be the critical mass? Will it be 10, 12 or 15 students? If the scheme is to be cost-effective, there must be a critical mass. I think that it must be between 10 and 15. Even in a large comprehensive with as many as 80 or 100 staff, the addition of 15 students would impose a considerable burden; most large schools would not take on more than three or four at any one time, because of the disruption involved. I need not remind the Minister that one of the reasons why Harrow school left the partnership scheme was the disruption that it anticipated.
      If a large comprehensive will not be able to cope, how will a large primary school with perhaps 20 teachers cope? How will a small primary with six or seven teachers deal with perhaps a similar number of students at the same time? As with so many of the Government's Bills and policies, no consideration has been given to the way in which the proposals will work in the classroom.
      I know what many parents will feel about the Bill. They want their children to be taught by well motivated, highly skilled teachers; they want those teachers to spend their time with the children in the classroom. What they do not want is for the school to be full of students so that teachers spend their time helping those students.
      The most serious contradiction in the Bill is the fact that Tory Members have constantly criticised teacher training and trendy ideas during the 1960s and those teachers who, supposedly, conspired to lower standards, yet the Bill gives the job of training new teachers to the alleged villains of the piece.
      The Bill is seriously flawed. It has little support in schools and no support among parents. The only glimmer of light in the gloom is that few schools will take it on because it is totally unworkable.
      9.40 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) referred to the two Ministers on the Front Bench as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. I have a grudging affection for them—and for the Secretary of State, who may not be with us for much longer—but I thought that they looked more like the Flower Pot Men as
      408
      they watched the Secretary of State wandering in and out of the Chamber. "Bill and Ben, the Flower Pot Men. Flubberdub. Where did the Little Weed go?"
      The Bill is totally unnecessary and unwelcome. Nevertheless, our debate has brought some welcome developments. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed part II of the Bill, on which the Government have shown some willingness to listen to concerns expressed by people both inside and outside the House, despite the blandishments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).
      It was also interesting to hear the Secretary of State apparently welcome the idea of an outside, non-partisan body that would look into some education issues. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the fact that the Education Commission has secured some additional funding to continue the excellent work that it was doing.
      I also welcome the Government's admission that the parents charter was not all that it was cracked up to be. I particularly welcome the Minister's remark that one could not rely on a document like that.
      The vast majority of the damage will be done by part I, which fails to recognise the real problems in the education service. The Government would have done far better to deal with those problems than the issues which they have dealt with in part I. Their energy would have been put to better use in looking at the underfunding of the education service and giving even more impetus to increasing significantly the level of nursery education available to three and four-year-olds. They should have dealt with the desperate need to establish a general teaching council to raise the professional status of teachers rather than to reduce it, as part I does.
      Part I is also dangerous. For example, it introduces into our education service yet another unelected, remote, undemocratic quango. More than 55 per cent. of all central Government expenditure on education is now through quangos. People are concerned about the denial of the democratic principle by those quangos, not least when they see that their membership is solely in the hands of the Secretary of State, who will appoint between eight and 12 faceless men and women who will meet in secret and not be answerable to Parliament. They could certainly never claim to represent an independent or credible organisation.
      The Secretary of State assured us that the Bill would not give him any additional powers. He continually tells us that he has moved power from the hub of the wheel to the rim of the wheel, yet, as recently as today, he demonstrated effectively the way in which the Bill gives him significantly increased power.
      The Secretary of State was pleased to be able to announce as recently as today a new initiative in respect of OFSTED, whereby he would use his powers under clause 7 of the Bill to dictate that OFSTED should be allowed to visit organisations and institutions and that, if they did not let it in, no funds would be available. The clause provides:
      "The Secretary of State may make grants to the funding agencies of such amounts and subject to such terms and conditions as he may determine."
      That two-line part of the clause shows the enormous power that the Secretary of State will gain from the Bill.
      The Secretary of State also said, during his brief contribution, that he was perhaps sorry that he had not started reforms of teacher education sooner, but that one has to start somewhere. That belies all the changes that

      409
      have taken place in initial teacher education under the current Secretary of State and his predecessors in recent years, some of which I welcomed.
      The Secretary of State rightly moved the initial teacher training so that more time has been spent in the classroom. Moves by the Secretary of State and the Conservative Government have ensured the establishment of worthwhile partnerships between schools and institutions of higher education. Those are welcome, but the proposals in the Bill, especially the drive towards school-centred initial teacher training, are, I believe, a move too far. That move will, in due course, remove opportunities for choice and diversity as more and more institutions drop out of providing initial teacher education.
      The Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Government Bench have been able to provide no evidence of support for those proposals. They have been able to provide no evidence that the proposals will improve the quality of teacher training, and there has been no realisation by the Secretary of State or his colleagues of the distinction between training someone to join the profession of teaching and technician education.
      The Bill—especially part I—will do a great disservice to the country's education service, and it will continue to lower the morale of the people working in the service. I very much hope that it will not be given a Third Reading.
      9.47 pm
      Mr. Gunnell: In the past two or three weeks, my constituents have reminded me of the only aspect of education about which there has been agreement across the House as far as the Bill is concerned—we are anxious about the quality of education.
      Constituents have come to me, expressing a great deal of anxiety about the fact that their children had not been able to obtain, or they thought that their children would not be able to obtain, places in schools in Morley, which is half of my constituency, because so many people were coming in from outside the constituency—and indeed from outside Leeds—under the Greenwich judgments. Indeed, the authority originally allocated their children to schools that they felt were of lesser quality.
      That brought it home to me that the three high schools in Morley are all schools where the quality of the education is good, and the quality is good because the head teachers and staff are good, as are the relationships that exist in the schools. Those are all schools that I have been in at the time that I was involved in teacher training, and they are all schools that have a great deal to commend them. It was not surprising, therefore, that my constituents felt aggrieved that their children were placed in schools that they considered to be of lesser quality.
      It has been the view of the Government that they are bringing forward a Bill that improves the quality of education because it improves the quality of teaching. I find that they have not made their case.
      The Bill has no merit from beginning to end. It is notable that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has already gone on record as saying that she would get rid of the Teacher Training Agency if she were Secretary of State. That is a commitment that I very much hope and expect she will fulfil. It is the only fit thing to do.
      410
      The Bill is based on myths. We know what they are because those of us who served on the Committee were given the briefings that were given to Conservative Members. Each of those briefings starts with one of the myths.
      The briefing for part I of the Bill talks of political correctness. It states that higher education institutions, particularly teacher training institutions, are more concerned with political correctness than education. We heard that in Committee, we heard it from the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and, of course, we heard it from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who is very concerned about political correctness.
      All the examples given—most of them from Lancaster—were to be found in the briefing given to Conservative Members. It was not quite respectable enough to have come from central office, but it came with some guarantee from the Ministers. It consisted of various myths about the worst things that were thought to happen in teacher training institutions.
      With part II of the Bill came another book of myths of the dreadful things done by student unions. We heard that again today from the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Colne Valley. Once the hon. Member for Colne Valley sees the word "union" on a piece of paper, it affects him in a certain way. I wonder whether, if I look at the Huddersfield District Chronicle, I shall find that the hon. Gentleman has been attacking the Mothers Union or the Band of Hope Union. As soon as he sees anything about unions he responds in a particular way.
      The fact that part II of the Bill exists is a tribute to the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The Lords made it clear that part II, as originally envisaged by the Government, was nonsense. Part II contains the longest clause in the Bill—a clause which does nothing and which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals rightly said was otiose and unworkable. Otiose means idle—the clause is idle, as is that part of the Bill, because it does nothing and does not contain legislation of any value. All it does is make it possible for people who are not student union members to ensure that they can get their drinks at the union bar—that was always going to be the case. Part II is a complete waste of time. It is not particularly dangerous and only becomes so if many people opt out of unions and the unions find it hard to fulfil their welfare functions.
      Part I is based on the myth that what happens in higher education is politically correct. Part I is dangerous. We must consider the likely consequences if the Teacher Training Agency remains in existence for very long. It will reduce the quality of teaching. Because of my own background I am particularly concerned about the quality of science teaching. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) is concerned about the quality of chemistry students. I accept that sometimes chemists may have greater difficulty in coming to terms with the subject in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth specialises than he would in coming to terms with theirs.
      We must be concerned about the quality of science teachers because we must be concerned about the number of science graduates—we know that there will be a shortage.
      There are particular difficulties in training science graduates for work in secondary schools because there is disharmony between the concept of a university degree in science and what we now ask of science teachers in

      411
      secondary schools. The best students still very much aim for a single-subject honours degree. Fortunately, there are now some degrees that encompass two or even three subjects, but they are relatively few.
      When the teacher with an honours degree in physics or chemistry goes to a secondary school, he will be expected to teach not just physics or chemistry but across the whole range of sciences. Quite rightly, we have moved towards integrated science to give students an understanding of the fundamental principles of science as a whole. That means that that teacher must have academic retraining or he will spend a great deal of time teaching a subject in which his academic background is weak.
      The Secretary of State will know that many people recruited in times of teacher shortage do not have the academic background to teach science in secondary schools. That problem will be compounded by a system that takes the initial training of teachers away from higher education. University departments of education have a range of science expertise that can help individual students. They also have a range of equipment that simply is not available in individual schools.
      I have visited many schools that are hesitant about laboratory work because of the cost of materials. Therefore, when training teachers they cannot encourage them to experiment. Everyone knows that, when conducting an experiment for the first time, we are likely not to have it right so it does not work. Any one in science teaching has had that experience. We have to learn to deal with that, but it is better to do so within a university setting than in a school in front of a class of 30 to 40 pupils. I believe that not just in science, but more widely, there will be a reduction in quality as a result of removing teacher training from higher education institutions.
      A second factor is that, over time, many schools—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) cited Harrow—will drop out of initial teacher training. Ilkley grammar school has said that it can no longer take teacher training students because there is a fundamental conflict between its job of educating children and the job it is being increasingly asked to do of training teachers, even in partnership with higher education institutions.
      That conflict means that schools that want to concentrate on pupils and on what happens in the classroom are increasingly reducing the amount of contact between student teachers and pupils. They feel that that is important if they are to maintain their positions in the league and their examination results. There will be a reduction in the number of schools involved in teacher training.
      The future under the Bill and the Teacher Training Agency will be one of a diminishing number of higher education institutions and schools involved in teacher training. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that some of the measures that the Government have taken in previous years have led to more contact with schools and have been beneficial to the system, but the Bill's provisions in respect of the Teacher Training Agency will weaken teacher training.
      The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said earlier that he was concerned about intellectual rigour in education. It is a great pity that the Secretary of State for Education and his Ministers are not concerned about
      412
      intellectual rigour in teacher training; they are, in fact, diminishing it. They believe that education theory can be taught by people who have retired from the—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Education Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, through opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]
      Question agreed to.
      Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Mr. Gunnell: I was coming to the end of my speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that that might be popular.
      As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said, concern about intellectual rigour in education seemed to make the hon. Member for Buckingham melancholic. He might well be melancholic about the lack of intellectual rigour in the proposals, which are made on the basis of that what happens at the chalk face and what happens in the ivory cocoon are completely separate. We believe in a teacher training system where the practical experience in schools is fully consonant with a theoretical base in which there is an understanding of education.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Colin Pickthall. [Interruption.]
      10.1 pm
      Mr. Pickthall: Did Conservative Members think that they could get away that lightly?
      The core of the impulse behind the Bill is the assumed inefficiency and political undesirability of teacher education in the higher education sector. The Government's target has shifted in the past few years. Formerly, they said that teachers were responsible for all the ills of society, for not providing sufficiently trained pupils to fulfil the needs of business and commerce or young people sufficiently trained to be quiet citizens. The changes made in successive Education Acts were accompanied by a barrage of scorn that Conservative Members directed at teachers. Unfortunately for the Government, the experience of the population vis-a-vis their schools did not coincide with that, and the Secretary of State for Education succeeded in uniting almost all sections of education in resisting the Government's general attitude towards teachers.
      In the past year or two, therefore, the Government have shifted their target—it is now teacher educators in universities and colleges. Conservative Back Benchers, if not co-Ministers, as they refer to themselves, have poured contempt on those people who are involved in teacher education. That has been obvious tonight. The hon. Members for Ealing, South (Mr. Greenway) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) make blanket condemnations of teacher education in colleges and universities. Throughout Committee, their argument was based on a painfully compiled booklet that contains a mixture of anecdotes, apocryphal details, exaggerations and generalisations about the dealings of teacher education departments and faculties. It was somewhat equivalent to the urban myth that we have read about in the newspapers.
      The Secretary of State—we quoted this many times—said clearly in public that the school-centred initial teacher training schemes are all about bypassing higher education,

      413
      although, if I may get in a plug, the college where I used to teach in my constituency is the only one in the country that was judged "excellent" for its PGCE courses last year.
      Conservative Members still talk about teacher training colleges—they referred to them again today—but they have not existed for a decade and a half. A huge change has taken place in colleges and universities and—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know what hon. Members on both sides of the House are talking about, but I do know that I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I hope that the House will settle down a little.
      Mr. Pickthall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      A huge change has taken place, and is still taking place, in partnerships between colleges and schools. Most people, including hon. Members on both sides of the House, agree that partnerships are the right way forward, and that despite their many problems they are producing, and will produce, the goods. That was, and is, the change.
      The Minister has accused us of being "conservatives" in the matter, but we are not; we are living through and, I hope, helping with a crucial change. But leapfrogging over that change comes another change—the school-centred initial teacher training scheme. Throughout Committee stage and today, the Opposition have tried to explore what the education experience of a trainee teacher should be.
      Certainly that experience should be practical and school-based to a large extent, but it should also be theoretical. Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, we have heard Conservative Members throwing out lampoons about theory in education. Students are required to know about the foundations of knowledge and skills, and how they are acquired. Of course, that involves some sociology and psychology; some legal knowledge—that can be a minefield—and knowledge of the structures of education systems and of comparative studies, as well as sex education, which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) discussed, special educational needs and a host of other things.
      Training also involves constant discussion and collaboration with other students, which the Bill seeks at least to water down. It also involves subject knowledge, which higher education can provide and schools cannot, to the same level. Teacher education involves the use of libraries and technologies, which universities and colleges can provide. Most of all, it involves the neutral role of a tutor, who is not involved in the particular politics and circumstances of the school.
      Tonight we have again tried to explore the reality of the impact of those changes on the schools that will be directly affected. In all cases, Ministers' replies to us have largely avoided the central issues that we have tried to raise. We have tried to build in safeguards with our amendments, and to alert parents to the tremendous changes that SCITT schools will undergo. Again, all that has fallen on stony ground. Any impartial observer would have thought that the vast number of amendments proposed in Committee by the Labour party and by the Liberal Democratic party spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) were constructive, neutral and certainly free of ideology. Yet Ministers brushed them all aside.
      414
      Ministers have tried to assure us throughout the Bill's passage that higher education, including that part of higher education concerned with teacher education, is in no danger from the Bill. But they have only to listen to their own Back-Bench colleagues, especially the hon. Member for Ealing, North, to realise what their real intentions are.
      In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I shall go on for another 10 minutes in that case. In conclusion, I should like to make a small bet with the Minister; perhaps he will respond to it when he sums up. The chairman of the Teacher Training Agency has been announced, and I should like to make a small wager that the name of Sheila Lawlor will figure, at least on the short list, for the post of its chief executive. I believe that we all have a fairly clear idea of her views on higher education, teacher education and even nursery schools.
      Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) that the Bill is intellectually disreputable and will do great damage to teacher education and to the future of our schools.
      10.8 pm
      Mr. Bryan Davies: It is not often that one has the pleasure of seeing the House fill with hon. Members in eager anticipation of one's contribution, so I feel it incumbent on me to sum up the major issues arising from the Bill in a conspicuous effort to persuade Conservative Members, even at this late stage, to realise that it would be folly to give a Third Reading to such a bedraggled measure.
      For those hon. Members who have been so busy elsewhere that they have not been able fully to follow the detailed development of the measure, it may help to refresh their memories if I remind them that the Bill started life as a most aggressive measure from the Secretary of State, with which he meant to achieve two aims. First, he was to achieve a new dawn for teacher education and the training of teachers in this country and, secondly, he would demolish the student unions, especially the National Union of Students—a source of such grievance to certain members of the Conservative party, but not to those who take an interest in educational matters.
      The Bill was introduced in the other place and it was dismantled—not by the Labour Opposition, although our case was presented by our colleagues with their usual forcefulness and accuracy, but, in fact, by Conservative Members; right-wing Conservative Members, who knew something about education and thought that the Bill was nonsense. They thought that it was such nonsense that the Minister in the other place had the good sense to take the Bill away for several months and cogitate on its problems in some hope that, when it eventually returned, it would have a safe passage through the House.
      The reason why the Bill will continue to have difficulty—I hope that it will have difficulty this evening, too—is quite clear. First, it is not the case that anybody sets out to defend higher education as such. We all seek to defend quality performance by higher education, but, we are not prepared to tolerate—nor are those who thought about the issue in the other place—a significant erosion of teacher training on the basis of an experiment which is only part-way through and the results of which are unproven.
      It seems reasonable, in education at least, that we should have some regard for scientific methodology and some respect for the fact that, if the Government are carrying out

      415
      an experiment in the consortia of schools which conduct teacher education, that experiment should run its course and a true evaluation should be made before legislation is passed. It is far from that. I appeal to reasonable Conservative Members to recognise that they are being asked to vote on giving the Bill a Third Reading when we have no evidence of the success of the experiment, except hearsay.
      We know that the experiment will certainly lead to a considerable erosion of the quality of teacher education for the following reasons. The development of teacher education in schools will be fraught with difficulties. Conservative Members must know that schools are under strain. All Conservative Members with experience of governing bodies and of representations from parents will recognise that the convulsions which schools have undergone in recent years has put them under great pressure. If results are to be published and the Government's much-vaunted league tables are to be the measure of school performance, schools, rightly, will concentrate on those measures of success identified by the Government.
      I ask Conservative Members whether they would, as members of a governing body, therefore take lightly an assumption that the school should devote significant resources to teacher education, to untrained students being before the classes in significant numbers to promote their education, but not, of course, being able to provide the same, experienced teaching to the students in their charge? Would they be certain that the resources were forthcoming in that scenario, when schools recognise that the pressure on resources at the present time is intense?
      The experiment will erode teacher education, because, as the Government know, university departments of education—and especially university governing bodies and senates—will be watching the position with great concern. Those governing bodies now see that the work of university departments could be reduced because the governing bodies no longer control the resource flow to the departments, since it comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State's quango—yet another of the unelected organisations set up by the Secretary of State to operate in education. Is it any wonder that there are great anxieties about the supply of teachers for the future, great worries about the strains and stresses on our schools and great concern about the quality of performance of the new scheme that the Government are thrusting upon us?
      The second part of the Bill is now so truncated as to be scarcely worth Conservative Members bothering to participate in debates upon it. We had the rather undignified spectacle this evening of two or three Conservative Back-Bench Members, in place of the 50 or 60 hard ideologues of their party, out to wreck the National Union of Students, seeking to ensure that, if a student contracted out of his £1.20 a year payment to the union, he should receive a 40p rebate on the ground that he had not had full value for money. That was the absurdity to which we were reduced.
      In effect, the Bill tells students—an increasingly large range of students with a significant number of votes, and an increasing number of part-time and mature students—and their representative institutions that the Government want to create the nanny state. It will place universities in a position in which they will have to supervise every move, every piece of expenditure and every action made and taken by students unions. We are talking of students who
      416
      are supposed to be being educated for a democracy. As I have said, many of them are fully participating members of that democracy. I warn the Government that when students get the chance next time to participate fully in the democratic process, the Conservative party will get short shrift on the basis of the Bill.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 249.

      Division No. 289]

      [10.16 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Alexander, Richard

      Dover, Den

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Duncan, Alan

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Amess, David

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dykes, Hugh

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Eggar, Tim

      Atkins, Robert

      Elletson, Harold

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Evennett, David

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Faber, David

      Bates, Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bellingham, Henry

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Forman, Nigel

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Booth, Hartley

      Forth, Eric

      Boswell, Tim

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bowis, John

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      French, Douglas

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Brazier, Julian

      Gale, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      Gallie, Phil

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Garnier, Edward

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gill, Christopher

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Burns, Simon

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butcher, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Butler, Peter

      Gorst, Sir John

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Cash, William

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hague, William

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Churchill, Mr

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clappison, James

      Hannam, Sir John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Harris, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hawkins, Nick

      Colvin, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Congdon, David

      Hayes, Jerry

      Conway, Derek

      Heald, Oliver

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hendry, Charles

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Couchman, James

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Cran, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

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

      Horam, John

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

      Day, Stephen

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Devlin, Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      417

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jack, Michael

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jessel, Toby

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sackville, Tom

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Key, Robert

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shersby, Michael

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Sims, Roger

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Soames, Nicholas

      Legg, Barry

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Leigh, Edward

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lidington, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lightbown, David

      Spring, Richard

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lord, Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Luff, Peter

      Stephen, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stern, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Allan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      Madel, Sir David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Malone, Gerald

      Sykes, John

      Mans, Keith

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Thomason, Roy

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

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

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Tracey, Richard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tredinnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trend, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Trimble, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Norris, Steve

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Ward, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Watts, John

      Paice, James

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Whitney, Ray

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Whittingdale, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pawsey, James

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wilkinson, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Willetts, David

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wilshire, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wolfson, Mark

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wood, Timothy

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Richards, Rod

      Riddick, Graham

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Mr. Andrew Mackay and

      Robathan, Andrew

      Mr. Bowen Wells

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Allen, Graham

      Ainger, Nick

      Alton, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      418

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Galloway, George

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Gapes, Mike

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Ashton, Joe

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Barnes, Harry

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Barron, Kevin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Battle, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Gordon, Mildred

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Graham, Thomas

      Bell, Stuart

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Benton, Joe

      Gunnell, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hain, Peter

      Berry, Roger

      Hall, Mike

      Betts, Clive

      Hanson, David

      Blunkett, David

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Boateng, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Boyes, Roland

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Bradley, Keith

      Henderson, Doug

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Heppell, John

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

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

      Hinchliffe, David

      Burden, Richard

      Hodge, Margaret

      Byers, Stephen

      Hoey, Kate

      Caborn, Richard

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cann, Jamie

      Hoyle, Doug

      Chidgey, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Church, Judith

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hutton, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Jamieson, David

      Clelland, David

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Coffey, Ann

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Connarty, Michael

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Corbett, Robin

      Keen, Alan

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Cummings, John

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Lewis, Terry

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Litherland, Robert

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Darling, Alistair

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davidson, Ian

      Loyden, Eddie

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McAllion, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McAvoy, Thomas

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

      McCartney, Ian

      Denham, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dewar, Donald

      McFall, John

      Dixon, Don

      McKelvey, William

      Dobson, Frank

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McLeish, Henry

      Dowd, Jim

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      MacShane, Denis

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McWilliam, John

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Madden, Max

      Eastham, Ken

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Enright, Derek

      Mahon, Alice

      Etherington, Bill

      Mans, Keith

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marek, Dr John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Fisher, Mark

      Martlew, Eric

      Flynn, Paul

      Meacher, Michael

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Foulkes, George

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Fraser, John

      Milburn, Alan

      Fyfe, Maria

      Miller, Andrew

      419

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Sheerman, Barry

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Short, Clare

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Simpson, Alan

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mowlam, Marjorie

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

      Mudie, George

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mullin, Chris

      Snape, Peter

      Murphy, Paul

      Soley, Clive

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Spearing, Nigel

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Olner, William

      Stevenson, George

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Parry, Robert

      Straw, Jack

      Patchett, Terry

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Timms, Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Tipping, Paddy

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Turner, Dennis

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Vaz, Keith

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Prescott, John

      Walley, Joan

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Purchase, Ken

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Watson, Mike

      Radice, Giles

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Randall, Stuart

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Raynsford, Nick

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Redmond, Martin

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Reid, Dr John

      Wilson, Brian

      Rendel, David

      Winnick, David

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Worthington, Tony

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Rogers, Allan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Rooney, Terry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Mr. John Spellar and

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mr. Eric Illsley.

      Ruddock, Joan

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Contracts
  10.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,
  That the draft Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
  The purpose of the order is to make some minor modifications to the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 in order to reflect the accession of Spain and Portugal to the 1980 Rome convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations.
  It may be helpful at the outset to say a few words by way of background about the 1980 Rome convention. It is a convention made between member states of the European Community, the purpose of which is to harmonise their private international law rules on contract: It lays down rules to determine which law is to apply to a contract that has connections with more than one country. It does not affect the substantive law of contract, but merely enables courts to decide which country's law governs a contract. That harmonisation is designed to make it easier for people to do business in the Community, as the rules on applicable law will no longer vary according to which member state's courts hear litigation in the field of contract law.
  The convention was opened for signature in 1980. This country signed it in 1981 and ratified it in January 1991, having given effect to it in United Kingdom law by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. The reason for the delay was the time taken to negotiate two protocols to the convention, which provide for the European Court of Justice to have jurisdiction in certain cases under the convention and which were signed in 1988. This country's ratification was the last needed to bring the convention into force on 1 April 1991. All nine member states at the date of the opening for signature of the convention have now ratified it.
  Although the Rome convention is not strictly a piece of Community legislation, it is related to article 220 of the treaty of Rome—the treaty which established the European Economic Community. The purpose of that article is to ensure that member states enter into negotiations to secure the simplification and facilitation of recognition and enforcement of judgments in the Community and new member states undertake to accede to the conventions made thereunder, in particular the 1968 Brussels convention on jurisdiction, and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The Rome convention concerns a related area of private international law. Greece acceded to it by the Luxembourg convention of 1984. The United Kingdom ratified that latter convention, and it too is now in force.
  The convention on the accession of Spain and Portugal was signed in Funchal on 18 May 1992—as a matter of fact, by me. It resembled that for Greece closely in text and is largely formal. It is to be found in the schedule to the draft order, article 9 of which will insert it as a new schedule to the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990.
  The changes to the 1990 Act contained in this draft order are minor and uncontroversial, and are necessary in order for this country to ratify the convention whereby Spain and Portugal have acceded to the 1980 Rome

  421
  convention. As such, the order facilitates a useful development in an important area of private international law and I commend it to the House.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: However minor and uncontroversial the order may or may not be, the manner in which it was moved by the Minister was indicative of a wider problem. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you called the order for debate, the Minister was strangely absent from his place, showing his marked reluctance to come to the House to be accountable for the actions of the Lord Chancellor's Department and, for once, to be accountable for his own actions: we learned that he signed the relevant document himself.
  Well, that is good news. For once, he can come to the House and be accountable for something that he has done, rather than something that the Lord Chancellor has done—or rather something that he has not done in fulfilling his duties. [Interruption.] I see that some hon. Members are anxious that we should get on. By the look of them, I think that this matter must have some vaguely European purpose because representatives of the two sides of the Conservative party are present in the Chamber. It is enough to make one wish to stay for the next business, rather than beating a hasty retreat.
  Mr. Winston Churchill: The hon. Gentleman is trying to stir up trouble again.
  Mr. Boateng: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not realised that it is part of the Opposition's job to stir up trouble. We do not have much difficulty with that lot on the Conservative Benches. Some of the usual suspects are here tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the they?"] We do not have any usual suspects on the Opposition Benches—we are all one great big happy family.
  I shall focus on the measure before the House because that is what you would wish me to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Article 1 of the Rome convention, to which the Minister referred, was given effect by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, which gave rise to the amending order that was laid before the House. The article contains a number of exclusion areas, if I may use that phrase—areas that are excluded from the rules of the convention. We are anxious to ascertain tonight the Government's intentions in relation to those areas.
  The areas excluded from the rules of the convention are: contractual obligations relating to wills and succession; rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, and rights and duties arising out of a family relationship; obligations arising under bills of exchange, cheques and other negotiable instruments, to the extent that the obligations arise out of the instrument's negotiable character; questions governed by the law of companies and other bodies corporate or unincorporate; the constitutions of trusts and the relationship between settlors, trustees and beneficiaries; and, importantly, contracts of insurance that cover risks in the European Community. All those are excluded under article 1. We want to know the Government's attitude towards them.
  Also, it is important that we know from the Minister what steps he and the Lord Chancellor's Department are
  422
  taking to ensure that the Rome convention and its application, in the way he described tonight, enhance legal certainty in that area rather than create fresh uncertainty.
  The purpose and intent of the convention, the 1990 Act and the amendment order are that there should be a degree of certainty within the European Economic Community—certainty which, by its existence, would facilitate the free movement and exchange of goods and services and in that way underpin the aims and purposes of the European Economic Community. We want to know what the Lord Chancellor's Department is doing to monitor that. We also want to hear from the Minister whether he is satisfied with its current application. The purpose of the Act and the order is that the parties to a contract should be free to choose which country's law shall govern it. That is an important principle, and it is one which has considerable implications for our courts.
  The Royal Courts of Justice and the various divisions are groaning under a weight of work and litigation. Their resources and staff are often stretched to breaking point. Some steps have been taken—under pressure, it must be said, from this side of the House—to deal with the shortage of High Court judges, although there remains a problem with the recruitment of those judges. But there is a problem in terms of the framework and infrastructure of the justice system within the jurisdiction.
  It is a popular jurisdiction, and one which many companies and bodies corporate and unincorporated seek to utilise for the purposes of litigation. We are anxious to ensure that the Government take steps to make sure that the cost of that litigation in utilising the legal infrastructure of the jurisdiction is not an undue burden. It must not constitute an unfair burden on the ordinary citizens of this country who choose to have recourse to our courts and who do not have the option for which the order provides. Many people who seek to institute litigation must choose whether or not they institute it here or in some other area of jurisdiction.
  Spain and Portugal have been added to those countries which have acceded to the convention. Their accession has implications for our jurisdiction, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assist in that area. What steps is he taking to ensure that that does not constitute an unfair burden on the infrastructure of the courts?
  We have in recent weeks written to the Minister on a number of occasions, and we have placed questions on the Order Paper which relate specifically to accommodation and infrastructure matters as far as the jurisdiction is concerned. On 26 May this year, we asked about the report which is being undertaken by those who are undertaking the fundamental review of the Department's spending. We asked that the report be published, and that any policy changes arising from that report be made known. It is obviously important to the consumer of legal services that we should know the implications of the fundamental review of the Department's spending.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is not appropriate to go into that matter in the sort of depth which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do this evening.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Not at all.
  Mr. Boateng: I am not anxious—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard a sedentary remark which was not appropriate.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I withdraw.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful.
  Mr. Boateng: I would not for one moment ask the Minister to launch into an explanation now of his Department's fundamental review. That, as you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be improper. However, I do ask him to reconsider the decision not to publish the report.
  The order clearly has implications for the review. If Spain and Portugal accede to the convention and litigants who might formerly have chosen either of those countries as the appropriate jurisdiction now use this one, we are entitled to know the spending implications and the implications for multi-party actions. Contracts and the performance of contracts are giving rise to increasing implications for a wide range of persons. They may not all be parties to the litigation, but they are certainly affected and influenced by the contracts.
  On 21 June, we asked the Minister whether, in the light of the review that had been undertaken, he would publish his Department's findings on the rules governing multi-party actions. He refused to do that too, apparently because it was tied up with the fundamental review of legal spending with which we shall not be dealing tonight. We also asked—this, too, is highly relevant to the current position in the Royal Courts of Justice—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Lone Ranger!"] If I am the Lone Ranger, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) certainly is not Tonto; we can be sure of that.
  We are concerned about the implications for the Royal Courts of Justice, and the changes in the possible venue for litigation. Why is the Minister again not prepared to publish an apparently innocent review of court accommodation that his Department is undertaking? Why should we not all know about court accommodation? I see that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is tickled pink by that suggestion—or, rather, tickled a still darker shade of blue.
  I hope that the Minister will give us some answers. If we are given an assurance that in due course we shall receive still more detailed answers, perhaps the order will be approved; if not, we shall have to consider our position very carefully.
  10.48 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor: If the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) considers his position with the current number of supporters behind him, I do not think that he will make much headway.
  It was extremely precocious and completely out of order for me to attempt to assist you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman surpassed himself in straying from the subject. The internal review of the Lord Chancellor's Department, to which he referred several times, has absolutely nothing to do with the international protocols of private international law. I will at least oblige him in regard to resource implications. It must be plain to any man or woman of good will that, if Spain and Portugal accede, our citizens may be inconvenienced in such litigation as they may unfortunately find themselves involved in concerning those jurisdictions.
  424
  The hon. Gentleman's comments on infrastructure seemed to stray from the motion, and I shall not follow him. However, it was relevant to question the convention's adherence to the principles, which he and I understand, of freedom of contract. I hope that he will be reassured that the convention's two basic principles accord with previous United Kingdom law, and its implementation has therefore led to few changes in our law.
  First, the parties to a contract may choose which country's law is to apply to it. We regard that enshrining of freedom of choice as being central to the convention. Secondly, in the absence of such a choice, the contract is to be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected; and the convention lays down various rebuttable presumptions for determining that connection. That is a very English-law approach to the problem.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to exclusions. Matters excluded from the scope of the convention include contracts more closely related to family law, trusts, wills and succession, certain insurance contracts and questions governed by company law. My litany will be the same as the hon. Gentleman's, albeit not in exactly in the same order. He asked what was the Government's position, and I shall tell him. Those exclusions were negotiated and agreed between the member states in 1980. The Government have no plans at present to reopen the question of those exclusions. Any alterations would, of course, have to be negotiated between all parties to the convention.
  May I conclude by saying something about Gibraltar which may interest the House? The convention mentions European territories outside the United Kingdom
  "for the international relations of which the United Kingdom is responsible".
  Clearly, that means Gibraltar. I should like the House to know that shortly the Government intend to extend the Rome convention to Gibraltar under article 27 of the convention. We see no reason to delay extension until after the deletion of that article by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 1994. No legislation is needed in this country to effect such an extension because Gibraltar has already enacted the necessary legislation in its own legislature.
  I hope that the House will welcome that. I also hope that it will welcome the accession of Spain and Portugal.
  Mr. Boateng: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, how characteristically churlish.
  Not surprisingly, we are not satisfied by the Minister's response. He has failed to answer questions about the fundamental review. We shall continue to push those questions and pursue and harry the Minister until he answers them. There will be many more interesting debates such as we have had under your chairmanship tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, until such time as those questions are answered.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.

  European Union (Accessions) Bill
  Motion made,
  That, in respect of the European Union (Accessions) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Winston Churchill: The redress of grievance has been a time-honoured role of the House of Commons over the centuries, and remains as important today as it did in the days of monarchical despotism. It is for that reason that I wish to draw the House's attention to a serious injustice—indeed, the most serious injustice that I have come across in the 24 years I have been privileged to serve in this House.
  It concerns the plight of Britain's expatriate pensioners, living in those countries where their pension was frozen at the date on which they left the United Kingdom, or when they first became eligible for a pension.
  Ninety-five per cent. of Britain's retirement pensioners remain in this country for their retirement. Approximately 2 per cent. live in the European Union, the United States or that tiny handful of countries where they enjoy the uprating of pensions. The ambit of this Adjournment debate is therefore to focus on that 3 per cent. of British state pensioners who have contributed throughout their working lives to their retirement pension, but who are denied that retirement pension at present.
  Of 676,000 British pensioners drawing their retirement pension abroad, more than half—about 381,000—have their pensions frozen. Although they have exported the costs of their health care and their old age, to the great relief of the British taxpayer, instead of receiving a bonus for so doing, they are, on the contrary, penalised—some very cruelly indeed.
  There is no rhyme or logic to that discrimination. War pensions and war widows' pensions are payable anywhere in the world at the full current rate. State retirement pensions, on the other hand, to which individuals have contributed throughout their working lives, are frozen in certain foreign countries, although not in the European Union, the United States and a handful of other countries. Nor is there any logic in the selection of those countries.
  Why, for example, are pensions frozen at the northern end of Lake Superior, in Canada, but not at the southern end, in the United States? Why are they frozen in Trinidad and Tobago but not in Jamaica or Barbados? Why are they frozen in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh but not in Iceland? Why are the pensions of the 14 British pensioners residing in retirement in the Falkland Islands frozen, when hundreds of millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money has been spent reclaiming those islands as British sovereign territory from the Argentines?
  Why, above all, are the pensions of those people who have retired to the old dominions, who make up nine out of every 10 of those being discriminated against, singled out for especially unfavourable treatment when, prior to 1955, they had received privileged treatment for pension purposes, and rightly so? Up to that point, it was only in His Majesty's dominions overseas that retirement pensions were payable overseas at all.
  The biggest groups affected are 160,000 British pensioners in Australia and 118,000 in Canada. It is no wonder that, in recent months, the Prime Ministers of both those Commonwealth countries have made vigorous representations to our Prime Minister, regarding the shameful way—there is no other word for it—in which the

  427
  British Government expect their pensioners to be given a free ride on the shoulders of the taxpayers of the old dominions.
  For example, British pensioners in Canada are today receiving an average weekly pension of £17.86 per week—not even one third of the current United Kingdom pension to which they have contributed. One of them, a Mr. R.S. Totman, of Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, is just one of many thousands who has written to me in recent months to protest. He writes:
  "Living in Canada, as I do, and having left the United Kingdom in 1968, my pension is frozen at the princely sum of £4.50 per week. If I had moved to the country of one of our former enemies, such as Germany, I would receive the full current pension…twelve and a half times as much!…I urge your Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. John Major, to press for this reform and not to let Britons abroad suffer any longer."
  The most poignant pleas for help come from British pensioners living in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Neither country has any social security net available to those in need. Mrs. Edna Thompson of Durban wrote to me last year saying:
  "I am an 86-year-old widow living alone and along with many of my peers I am almost destitute. Please try to get the British Government to do what is right by us regarding equality of pensions for us overseas oldies—we would come back to UK to claim a living but haven't the fare. My pension is £24.30 every 28 days. I dread the winter as I cannot afford to use any heat. Please help us."
  Mrs. Hannah Riddle wrote from Cape Town saying:
  "I hear that you are trying to help people who get a very small old age pension who do not live in England to get same upgraded. My late husband paid into the fund all his working life in England. We went out to Rhodesia in 1951 and he continued to pay into same yearly, until the age of 65…He got £6 a week but only lived to draw it for two years. I got £4 a week which is the sum I still receive. I am in my 90th year and find it hard to make ends meet these days. I wish you every success in your effort."
  That lady and others like her are being cheated—there is no other word for it—by the Government of £53.60 per week of the pension to which they contributed. If we were talking about a private personal pension or a life insurance policy and the directors of the company tried to restrict the territorial area of payment, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would have a shrewd idea of where those directors would be languishing now. They would be in gaol, and rightly so.
  More disturbingly, many of those facing the greatest hardship appear never to have been warned that by going abroad they would be depriving themselves of their entitlement to a full retirement pension at the current rate. Commander A.O. Johnson, retired from the Royal Navy, wrote to me from Noordhoek, South Africa and said:
  "My wife and I have lived here since 1951. I am now 85 and she 77. We receive £6.75 for self and £4.15 (for her) a week frozen. In 1951, having received Admiralty permission to emigrate, I wrote to ask if I would get the pension. You will see the reply."
  The reply from the Ministry of National Insurance, dated 21 July 1951, states:
  "If you take up South African nationality at some future date your title to benefits under the National Insurance scheme will not be affected by this change…Retirement Pension, Widow's Benefit and Death Grant are…all payable in South Africa."
  That reply was reinforced more than a decade later by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in a letter of 12 July 1963, which stated:
  "The Class Three contributions which you are paying maintain title to retirement pensions, death grant, widow's benefit and maternity benefit, all of which are payable abroad subject to territorial currency restrictions…If you regularly maintain
  428
  contributing to British National Insurance you will be entitled to this standard rate of retirement pension when you attain age 65."
  No mention was made in any of that correspondence of the fact that they would be depriving themselves of all future upratings by going to live abroad alongside their children.
  Finally, I want to quote from a letter from Mr. R. O. Craske of Harare, Zimbabwe. He writes:
  "May I quote the devastating and ludicrous situation of an old friend of ours who died recently at the age of 101 years with a British pension being paid to her at the rate of 50 pence per week, i.e. the rate of 10/-(ten shillings) which she was receiving when she came to this country before English decimalisation. In point of fact the cost of processing this payment absorbed the amount completely."
  How tragic that this hero generation, who struggled through the great depression and gave their all for Britain in the second world war, should be so monstrously neglected and abandoned in their declining years. How shameful that their cries for help fall on the deaf ears or stony hearts of a Government in London who can readily find £4 million to finance the legal fees of an Iraqi millionaire business man, yet claim they cannot find £230 million to pay our pensioners the pension to which they contributed throughout their working lives.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt tell us what an astronomical sum it is—but is it really? It represents less than 1 per cent. of the £36.6 billion by which the Government have so fecklessly increased social security expenditure since 1979 in real terms. It is not even one third of 1 per cent. of the overall DSS budget of £87.1 billion.
  I am grateful to Back-Bench colleagues on both sides of the House for the powerful support that they have lent to my all-party early-day motion No.205 entitled "Inequality of treatment of British state pensioners living abroad." So far, 282 colleagues from all quarters of the House have signified their support, representing fully half of all Members entitled to sign EDMs.
  Furthermore, the Government have been forced to admit that they have overestimated the cost of paying full state pensions to those living abroad by more than £100 million a year. As recently as 1991, the Government put the cost at £337 million. That was revised downwards in 1992 to £275 million and this year to a mere £230 million—almost one third less than the 1991 figure, despite a growth of 8 per cent. in the number of pensioners living in those countries and increases in the value of pensions of 6 per cent. What is going on? What can be the explanation for that? What confidence can we have that the latest figures are accurate?
  I am bound to say that I have no sympathy whatever for the suggestion that the Government should wriggle out of their obligations to these, the most deserving of all our pensioners. A month ago today, on the beaches of Normandy, I saw how deeply moved was our Prime Minister as more than 7,000 British Normandy veterans marched past Her Majesty on the sands of Arromanches. The British expatriate pensioners that this Government are so shamefully seeking to disown are of the very same hero generation.
  I call upon the Government tonight and specifically upon our Prime Minister, in the name both of moral obligation and natural justice, to end that shameful discrimination between British pensioners dependent on where they chose to retire, and to bring the United Kingdom into line with such countries as France and Italy,

  429
  where state pensions, including increases, are paid regardless of the country of residence and without the necessity of any reciprocal social security agreement.
  Would it not be a fine thing in this year, when we celebrate the 50th anniversary of D-day, to remember those who have borne the heat and burden of the day and acquit the debt of honour that we owe them by unfreezing all those frozen pensions?
  11.8 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) for raising this matter on the Adjournment. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for being here.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme made his case very powerfully, as we would expect. As he knows, this issue has been discussed for many years and the House is well aware of his commitment to it. He has written often to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security and has tabled a number of questions and an early-day motion. I am also aware of the strength of feeling among many British pensioners overseas.
  Dr. Robert Spink: My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the early-day motion; he will know that I do not sign early-day motions, although I support my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Does the Minister agree that the undertakings given by the Ministries of Pensions and of National Insurance, which were outlined so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme, should be honoured?
  Mr. Hague: I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point registers his support for what my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme said, notwithstanding his reluctance to sign early-day motions. I shall be dealing with precisely the matter that he raised.
  British pensions are paid anywhere in the world and we pay nearly 700,000 pensioners in more than 150 countries, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme said, more than half of them do not receive annual cost of living increases. That means that retired people who go to live in certain countries abroad will continue to receive their pensions at the rate payable when they left this country. Those who emigrated when younger get a pension payable at the rate in force when they reach retirement age. The expression that is commonly used, and which was used by my hon. Friend, is that pensions are frozen.
  This policy has been followed by successive Governments ever since regulations were made in 1955, although my hon. Friend drew attention to advice given to individuals before those regulations—advice which clearly could not anticipate those regulations.
  Mr. Churchill: It also happened afterwards, in 1963.
  Mr. Hague: If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, I will of course consider it. The 1955 regulations, which provided for pensions to be paid abroad, did not provide for increases to be paid on top.
  430
  The principal difficulty in extending the payment of pension upratings abroad is the cost, as my hon. Friend anticipated. This year, the Government will spend some £800 million on pension payments to beneficiaries who live outside the United Kingdom. I know that my hon. Friend is only too well aware of the huge size of the social security budget and the need to ensure that it is sustainable and affordable in the future.
  If all pensioners overseas were to be paid at the same level as pensioners in this country, that figure of £800 million would rise to about £1,030 million—an increase of nearly 30 per cent. or £230 million. That figure is no longer an estimate, in that it is based on the actual count of 85 per cent. of the pensioners overseas and what their entitlements would be. It is a huge amount of money and would have to be found from the existing social security budget paid to people who are resident in this country. The House knows that there are many worthwhile claims on that budget; we cannot meet them all at once.
  The only circumstances in which overseas pensions are not frozen are where the pensioner is in the European Economic Area or where we have a reciprocal agreement with another country which provides specifically for upratings. We have some 30 such agreements, including those with member states of the European Economic Area, although most of the latter were in existence before our accession to the European Community. The costs of making any further agreements are a very important consideration, as I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise.
  More than 80 per cent. of those pensioners who do not receive upratings live in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. We have reciprocal agreements with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, but they do not provide for upratings. I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned with the situation of pensioners in these countries of the old Commonwealth, and he drew particular attention to them tonight. I should point out that to unfreeze pensions completely in those four countries alone would cost about £200 million, an increase of 25 per cent. on current expenditure on overseas pensions.
  To pay future cost of living increases in these countries alone would cost some £10 million in 1994–95, rising each year until all pensioners in those countries were paid at the full United Kingdom rates, and eventually reaching the same cost of £200 million.
  Mr. Churchill: Surely my hon. Friend appreciates that those are people who have contributed to their pension throughout their working lives. What right have this Government, or any Government, to cheat those people of more than £50 a week of the pension to which they have contributed?
  Mr. Hague: I recognise my hon. Friend's point about the payment of national insurance contributions, and I shall talk about that in a couple of moments.
  There are 160,000 retirement and widow pensioners in Australia who receive their United Kingdom pensions at frozen rates. Some 110,000 of them receive the means-tested Australian age pension. Pensioners with other resources, such as an occupational pension, will not qualify for the Australian age pension because of their income. Many of those who do qualify will have been able to use the reciprocal agreement which helps them satisfy

  431
  the Australian test of residence there. The United Kingdom pension is deducted from the Australian age pension and the balance is paid by the Australian Government.
  To bring pensions paid in Australia up to the level of those in the United Kingdom would cost £105 million a year. From time to time, the Australian Government raise the issue with the United Kingdom Government, but we have had to make it clear that the cost would be prohibitive.
  There are about 30,000 United Kingdom pensioners in New Zealand. If upratings were to be paid in Australia, New Zealand would undoubtedly seek equal treatment. Again, the stumbling block would be cost—some £20 million a year. We also have many pensioners in Canada—nearly 120,000. To increase all pensions in Canada to full United Kingdom rates would cost some £60 million a year.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme said, pensioners overseas have paid national insurance contributions. However, the money that an individual contributes to the national insurance fund is not, and never has been, earmarked for that person. Ever since it was established, the national insurance scheme has always worked on a pay-as-you-go basis. This year's contributions go to this year's pensioners. It has to be remembered that paying contributions does not give, and never has given, automatic entitlement to benefits.
  The agreement between an individual and the state is that payment of contributions will give entitlement to benefit subject to certain conditions. For example, minimum pensionable age is currently set at 65 for men and 60 for women. Another condition is that retirement pension upratings are not generally payable abroad. That has been the position since 1955, and it has never been in any doubt under successive Governments of either party.
  People who inquire about their pension position if they go to live overseas are informed of the policy. Public information about pension entitlements makes the position clear. For instance the current leaflet, "Social Security Abroad", explains that, for retirement pension, widow's pension and widowed mother's allowance, increases are not paid abroad unless very limited conditions are met.
  The logic is that our social security system has been designed to provide for people in this country, and that annual upratings ensure that pensions are protected against price increases here. It is fair to point out that, since 1955, people affected would have known, or could have found out, that that would be the position—
  Mr. Churchill: No, because they have been lied to by the Department.
  Mr. Hague:—although I sympathise with the people whose cases have been described.
  I shall now cover various other arguments that my hon. Friend has advanced. One is that the cost of pensions
  432
  uprating should be offset by the saving to public services here—in particular to the national health service, which pensioners overseas do not use. I understand the argument, but we do not know what calls those people as individuals would have made on the NHS. Moreover, many went abroad long before reaching pension age, so, for many years, they did not contribute to health service costs. Also, of course, the pensioners concerned have gone abroad anyway, so to pay them unfrozen pensions would still be a major extra cost.
  I assure my hon. Friend—although no doubt he is all too well aware of this already—that the issue is frequently brought to the Government's attention. We are familiar with the arguments in favour of a change of policy, and we are sympathetic, but we cannot disregard the huge cost involved.
  Let me emphasise that we pay out more than £800 million a year to some 700,000 pensioners overseas, of whom about 300,000 get fully uprated pensions. However much we might like to do more, social security spending is running at more than £80 billion a year. Social security is the Government's largest expenditure programme. In the current year, it accounts for 28 per cent. of planned public expenditure and nearly 13 per cent. of the gross domestic product.
  The Government are committed to an efficient, effective and affordable social security system that is appropriate to modern needs and protects the most vulnerable, but we have to ensure that spending on social security does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay for it.
  My hon. Friend is a keen advocate of carefully controlling social security spending and he will know that my Department is conducting a fundamental review of spending. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced some specific proposals for reform over past years. Incapacity benefit, our vigorous efforts to combat fraud and the gradual equalisation of a state pension age at 65 are all designed to help restrain the growth in cost.
  In the interests of restraining the growth in cost, and of ensuring that the social security system is affordable in future, the control of social security spending must be tight. It is always easy to say that desirable items of spending would represent only a small addition to the budget, but if every idea was regarded in that way and accepted on that basis, the social security budget would soon be vastly greater.
  Control of spending must be tight. Payments to people resident overseas cannot be an exception to that. In such a climate, I must tell my hon. Friend that I am afraid that I cannot hold out any prospect of our being able to increase our expenditure by adding to spending on pensions overseas.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Compensation (Non-payment)
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions have been brought by the Crown Prosecution Service for non-payment of compensation awarded to victims as a result of court orders in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  The Attorney-General
  Compensation orders made in criminal proceedings are registered in the relevant magistrates' court which then has the responsibility for enforcement through the various powers vested in it for that purpose. The Crown Prosecution Service does not play any part in the enforcement of such compensation orders.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will request the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue a revised map of England and Wales for the annual report of the Crown Prosecution Service so that both Anglesey and the Isle of Wight are depicted.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions will ensure that Anglesey and the Isle of Wight are included with similar maps in future editions of the annual report.

  Racially-motivated Crime
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General what training is given to prosecutors regarding the racial motivation of crimes.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service runs a number of courses for legal staff which include sessions on various aspects of racial awareness including the racial motivation of crime. I have placed a more detailed description of such courses in the Library.

  The nature and substance of the racial awareness training provided by the CPS is currently being reviewed with a view to introducing further improvements where appropriate.

DEFENCE

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities his Department provides for the parking of the bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although no facilities are provided outside our buildings in the Whitehall area specifically for visitors' bicycles, facilities could usually be provided if they were requested.

  Rio Declaration
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the precise provisions of principle 24 of agenda 21 of the Rio declaration of June 1992; what is his policy in respect of implementing those provisions; and what specific guidance is given to the armed forces in respect of those aspects of principle 24 which commit signatories to fighting only environmentally friendly wars.

  Mr. Hanley
  As with other Governments participating in the Rio summit, the United Kingdom supports the broad principles enshrined in the Rio declaration, including principle 24, which says that states should respect international law providing protection for the environment in time of armed conflict. It is my Department's policy that the armed forces should act at all times in accordance with United Kingdom national and international law. Training in the law of armed conflict is given to all members of the armed forces.

  Access to Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many requests for environmental information under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992 have been received by his Department; how many were answered within two months; how many were refused; and on what grounds in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has received four requests for environmental information under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992; all received an answer within the specified two months; and none were refused.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Secure Accommodation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations which have made representations to him opposing the Government's plan to introduce secure accommodation for juveniles.

  Mr. Maclean
  In March 1993, the Home Office invited views and comments from interested organisations on the details of the proposals which were then being developed following the statement by the then Home Secretary my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on 2 March,Official Report, columns 139–42. Subsequently, more than 60 sets of written comments were received; and a range of meetings were held at both ministerial and official level. Although a substantial number of respondents were opposed to the introduction of a new secure training order, there was a very wide measure of agreement on the need for the courts to have a power to order the detention in secure accommodation of those juvenile offenders for whom it is clear that community penalties would be neither effective nor appropriate.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to ensure that the quality of education provided in the secure accommodation units run by private contractors is of a sufficiently high standard.

  Mr. Maclean
  Contractors will be required under the terms of their contracts to provide education and training
  199
  for trainees to an agreed standard based on the requirements set out in the operational specification for a secure training centre. The contract terms will be underpinned by minimum standards laid down in secure training centre rules. Copies of the operational specification and an administrative paper setting out proposed rules have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In addition, education standards in secure training centres will be subject to inspections arranged by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.

  Buggery
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of non-consensual buggery of men were reported in the United Kingdom in(a) 1983 and (b) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is readily available centrally only for England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The information for England and Wales given in table 1 is for those prosecuted. The 1993 data are not yet available. Information on cases reported during 1992 in Northern Ireland is given in table 2.

  Table 1

  Number of male prosecutions in England and Wales for non-consensual buggery of men, by offence 1983 and 1992

  England and Wales

  Number of males

  Offence description

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Buggery by a man with a male person of the age of 16 or over without consent1

  1982

  19

  1992

  38

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with a male person of the age of 16 or over without consent1

  1982

  3

  1992

  2

  Assault with intent to commit buggery2

  1982

  6

  1992

  6

  Indecent assault on male person, 16 years or over3

  1982

  148

  1992

  193

  1Sexual Offences Act 1956, sec. 12, as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967, sec. 3(1).

  2Sexual Offences Act 1956, sec. 16.

  3Sexual Offences Act 1956, sec. 15.

  Table 2

  Number of cases reported in Northern Ireland for non-consensual buggery of men by offence, 1992 Northern Ireland

  Offence description

  Number of cases

  Buggery by a man with a male person of the age of 16 or over without consent

  1

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with a male person of the age of 16 or over without consent

  —

  Assault with intent to commit buggery

  —

  Indecent assault on male person, 16 years or over

  —

  Refugees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals, displaced by violent conflicts are currently seeking refuge in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  200
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not separately identifiable from the statistics.

  Fire Officers (Injuries)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fire officers were injured in the course of their duty in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Figures are not yet available for the number of fire officers injured in the line of duty in 1993. However, in England and Wales in 1992, three fire officers were killed and 861 were seriously injured in the line of duty. Serious injuries are defined as those which result in absence from duty for at least one month or two weeks or more of hospitalisation.

  Channel Islands
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints his Department has received over the past five years relating to defects in the Channel Islands legal system or the failure of the Jersey legal system to deal promptly with crimes of fraud, violence and miscarriages of justice.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on 23 June,Official Report, column 257.

  May Report
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Sir John May's final report on the Guildford and Woolwich case.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on 30 June 1994,Official Report, column 653.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are expected to make successful claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme in each of the next six years.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is not possible to forecast how many successful claims will be made in any particular year as claims are not necessarily settled in the year in which they are made. However, for the purpose of some recent judicial review proceedings, it was estimated that the number of awards made in the next six years will be of the following order:

  Number

  1994–95

  46,900

  1995–96

  57,700

  1996–97

  60,300

  1997–98

  68,300

  1998–99

  74,800

  1999–2000

  76,400

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of those eligible to claim under the criminal injuries compensation scheme did so in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1993–94;
  201
  (2) how many crimes were committed in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 which involved a victim eligible for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme;

  (3) to what extent he expects the proportion of people eligible to claim who actually do claim under the criminal injuries compensation scheme to change over the next six years.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no information about numbers of people who might be eligible to claim compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assumptions have been used to estimate the likely future cost of the criminal injuries compensation scheme if his Department's proposals for reform were not implemented.

  Mr. Maclean
  Based on average trends over the 10 years to 1993–94, it was assumed, for this purpose, that numbers of applications received and cases resolved would continue to increase by 9 per cent. annually, and that the average award would continue to increase annually by 5 per cent. more than gross domestic product inflation. It was also assumed that the number of resolved cases attracting an award would remain between 62 per cent. and 65 per cent.

  Market Testing
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 market tests have been discontinued.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Ten market tests in the 1992–93 Home Office market testing programme have been discontinued. No market tests in the 1993–94 programme have been discontinued.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the total cost of external consultancy fees incurred by his Department in relation to market testing.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: From 1 April 1992 to 31 May 1994, expenditure by my Department including the Prison Service on external consultancies in respect of market testing is estimated to be approximately £930,000.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what interim proposals Ernst and Young has made as part of the expenditure review concerning(a) market testing, (b) unit costs and (c) the funding of voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During the course of the review a number of topics were considered for more detailed work. These included exploring a method of achieving equivalent savings to market testing without going out to competition, the development of better use of unit cost information and examination of the effectiveness of Home Office scrutiny of proposals for grants to the voluntary sector.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Prison Service functions have been contracted out and (b) in-house jobs have been lost as a result of the (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94 Prison Service market testing programmes.
  202
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 6 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many Prison Service functions have been contracted out and in-house jobs lost as a result of our 1992–93 and 1993–94 market testing programmes.
  The 1992–93 programme led to contracts being let for court escort and custody services in the East Midlands and Humberside area, for the management of Blakenhurst prison and for prison education. These have resulted in a net reduction of 78 full time equivalent Prison Service posts in relation to the court escort service. Because Blakenhurst was a new prison and education was not previously provided by in-house Prison Service staff, neither of these resulted in a loss of posts. Also, as a result of the in-house team winning the competiton for warehousing and distribution, 82 full time equivalent Prison Service posts were lost.
  From the 1993–94 programme the court escort and custody services in the Metropolitan Police District and the management of Doncaster prison have been contracted out. The net reduction in the number of Prison Service posts as a result of contracting out the court escort service is 250. Because Doncaster prison is a new prison, contracting out has not reduced the number of existing posts in the Prison Service.

  Management Training Seminars
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have attended management training seminars run by Padgett Thompson in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Howard
  Three members of staff have attended seminars run by Padgett Thompson.

  Research
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will publish research into(a) intensive community sentences and (b) reconviction rates;

  (2) when he will publish comparative European research into ethnicity and crime;

  (3) when he will publish his Department's research into the experiences of (a) refugees, (b) persons granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom and (c) Vietnamese refugees;

  (4) when he will publish research involving (a) criminal justice agencies' response to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and (b) the Bail Act 1976;

  (5) when he will publish the research and planning unit programme for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Howard
  Neither my ministerial colleagues nor I have had an opportunity to consider reports on four of the studies listed: intensive community sentences; reconviction rates; Vietnamese refugees; and the survey of criminal justice agencies' responses to the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  A report on the settlement of refugees, carried out in collaboration with Salford university, is currently being revised. This study included those granted exceptional leave to remain.

  A study of the Bail Act 1976 was published in 1992—"Offending while on bail", research and planning unit paper No. 65. A follow-up study based on five local

  203
  initiatives is nearing completion, and the report will be revised to take into account the comments of the five local steering groups and others.

  On comparative European research into ethnicity and crime, the Dutch Ministry of Justice is this month publishing a book on an international comparative study on youth and crime, which includes a chapter by Home Office researchers on results in this country. The research and planning unit is preparing a fuller report on the British results, which will include a detailed assessment of the findings by ethnic group.

  I expect reports on all the studies listed to be published later in the year, once they have been finalised and arrangements for their publication has been agreed.

  The research and planning unit programme for 1993–94 has been published, and a copy has been placed in the Library. The programme for 1994–95 will be published when this has been finalised.

  Prison Service (Drugs Survey)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the results of the Prison Service intelligence evaluation unit's drugs survey.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 6 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the results of the Prison Service Intelligence Evaluation Unit's Drugs' survey.
  The Intelligence Evaluation Unit recently conducted a survey of nine establishments to gain better information on the extent of the drugs problem in the Prison Service. The results indicated that:

  most of the establishments surveyed regarded themselves as having a significant drugs problem

  most experienced significant problems with drugs other than cannabis

  drug abuse created problems and could lead to bullying and inter group rivalry

  all establishments had found drugs following searches

  most establishments had found visitors trying to smuggle in drugs

  All the problems existed despite a range of active measures being taken by the establishments concerned to try and limit the entry of drugs and prevent the problem of drug use.
  The Prison Service is developing a central strategy to reduce to an absolute minimum the supply of drugs and the demands for drugs in prisons.
  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill contains provisions to allow prisoners to be required, in certain circumstances, to undertake drug tests.

  Ernst and Young
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the consultants Ernst and Young commenced work on the March 1994 expenditure review.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The review of Home Office expenditure involving Ernst and Young began on 8 April and is due to be completed later this month.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid by his Department and its agencies in consultancy fees to Ernst and Young during the last three financial years.
  204
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During the last three financial years, the Home Office has paid £856,564 to Ernst and Young for consultancy work.

  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations govern the notification of a prisoner in the event that he or she is placed in a cell with a prisoner with the AIDS virus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 May 19941:] Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 6 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about what regulations govern the notification of a prisoner in the event that he or she is placed in a cell with a prisoner with the AIDS virus.
  The Prison Service policy on HIV is given in Circular Instruction 30/1991. It emphasises that strict medical confidentiality shall apply to all prisoners' medical information, including information about HIV status. This policy reflects the policy which is adopted in the general community. Consequentially no prisoner would be notified about the health status of any other prisoner.
  HIV testing in prison is carried out at the request of prison inmates, or on the advice of a prison medical officer for diagnostic purposes and only with the inmate's informed consent. This practice also mirrors that applying in the community outside prison. As a result the number of prisoners known to have HIV infection in prison is a proportion of the total number of prisoners who may have HIV infection. To provide information about the health status of known HIV positive inmates would breach medical confidentiality, may provide prisoners with a false sense of security in relation to HIV infection, and be counter productive in that it may discourage those people concerned about HIV infection from coming forward for advice, medical care, counselling and support.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Personal Injury Cases
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the measures that he is currently taking to ensure that district judges have a full understanding of the complexities of personal injury claims.

  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  The Judicial Studies Board is responsible for the training of newly appointed deputy district judges and of experienced district judges. Training on personal injury cases is accorded great importance in both induction and refresher seminars. In addition, all judges who deal with such cases are issued with "Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases", which was produced by the Judicial Studies Board and published by Blackstone Press.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult prior to
  205
  legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government are required to consult the Council on Tribunals when considering rules affecting tribunals coming within the council's supervision but are not required to publish their response to that advice.

  There are two rule committees, the Land Registration rule committee and the Magistrates' Courts rule committee, which the Government are required by statute to consult prior to legislation proposals. The Government do not respond specifically to the advice given and, if they did, the response is not required to be published.

  Other rule committees are consulted and the committees consider, propose and advise the Government on legislative proposals. The Government do not respond specifically to the advice given and, if they did, the response is not required to be published.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which have a statutory basis.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is as follows:

  The Legal Aid Advisory Committee

  The Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI)

  The Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  The Advisory Council on Public Records

  The Council on Tribunals

  The Crown Court Rules Committee

  The County Court Rules Committee

  The Supreme Court Rules Committee

  The Magistrates Courts Rules Committee

  The Land Registration Rules Committee

  The Family Proceedings Rules Committee

  The Law Commission

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is as follows:

  The Legal Aid Advisory Committee

  The Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI)

  The Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  The Advisory Council on Public Records

  The Council on Tribunals

  The Law Commission

  Each of the 94 Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace in England and Wales produces an annual report.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament.

  Mr. John M. Taylor: The information requested is as follows:

  The Legal Aid Advisory Committee

  The Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI)

  206

  The Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  The Advisory Council on Public Records, as part of the Annual Report of the Public Record Office

  The Council on Tribunals

  The Law Commission, where the report is made to the Lord Chancellor who then lays it before Parliament

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the advisory bodies which he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being planned by the United Kingdom, the European Union and other countries to remedy the defects in transport arrangements in efforts to counteract the famine in the Hararghe area of eastern Ethiopia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The rural road network in Hararghe is poor. But British non-governmental organisations operating in the region believe that transport capacity is adequate to distribute available food aid.

  Access to Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many requests for environmental information under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992 have been received by his Department; how many were answered within two months; how many were refused; and on what grounds in each case.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ODA does not keep records of the number of requests received under the environmental information regulations nor when they were answered. The ODA keeps records of refusals to supply information and the grounds for refusal.

  In the period up to 30 June 1994, the Department gave 14 refusals: in 11 cases because no formal environmental impact assessments existed and in one case because the content contained internal advice; in another case, the report had been commissioned by, and was the property of, another Government; and in the other case access was refused on the ground of commercial confidentiality.

EMPLOYMENT

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the proposal of the Commissioner for Social Affairs, in his communication on immigration and asylum to the European Parliament and the Council 1994, to adopt a community code of practice prohibiting racial discrimination in employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand that the Commission is currently preparing a draft code of practice on race and
  207
  employment. The Government will consider their policy on the proposal when they have had the opportunity to study the draft.

  Health Professionals (Review Bodies)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff are involved in servicing the review bodies on doctors and dentists remuneration and on nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine; how many national health service staff are covered by those review bodies; and what is the annual cost of running those bodies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1994–95 the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration and the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine are expected to be serviced directly by up to eight staff, shared equally between the two bodies and assisted as necessary by other clerical and secretarial staff of the Office of Manpower Economics.

  As at 30 September 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, there were some 123,000 doctors and dentists and the full-time equivalent of some 512,000 nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine in the NHS. This includes staff employed by NHS trusts, which are free to determine the pay of their staff locally.

  The annual cost of running the two review bodies, in respect of the salary costs of the eight staff and the travel and subsistence costs for members—who are otherwise unpaid—and staff is expected to be £299,000 in 1994–95.

  Hope Street Theatre, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in objective funding for the Hope Street theatre training scheme in Liverpool.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  No objective 1 projects have been approved. Although negotiations on this Merseyside single programming document have been completed with the Commission, it—with the other United Kingdom objective 1 SPDs—is still waiting for the Commission to complete its internal procedures. Applications for European social funding supported projects such as Hope Street are, however, being invited this week.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a statement on the progress of his Committee's deliberations on improving access to the Palace of Westminster for disabled people;

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what further progress has been made by his Committee on improving access to the Palace of Westminster for disabled people.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  In response to a resolution of the former Services Committee a report containing recommendations for the improvement of provision in the Palace of 208
  Westminster for people with disabilities has been submitted to this Committee. Its proposals are being considered in the context of evidence from the Director of Works, a number of organisations representing disabled persons, and English Heritage. The Committee expects to receive further evidence this autumn and to make its conclusions known at the end of the year.

  Pending the Committee's final recommendations, approval has been given for a large number of minor and uncontentious improvements to go ahead. A number have already been completed and others have been included in the rolling programme of works. A sum of £250,000 has been set aside for this purpose in the current year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received regarding the warrant issued by the Indonesian Government for the arrest of the human rights lawyer Adrian Buyung Nasution; and if he will make representations to his Indonesian counterpart concerning the human rights situation in Indonesia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Rumours of Mr. Nasution's impending arrest have proved unfounded. The Indonesian authorities are well aware of the importance that we attach to respect for human rights. We draw it to their attention on a regular basis.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his Indonesian counterpart with regard to the banning of Tempo, Editor and De Tik on 21 June and the confrontation between Indonesian security forces and a peaceful demonstration in Jakarta on 27 June; and if he will make a statement on the current human rights situation in Indonesia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None as yet, but we will seek an early opportunity to make representations on this issue. We welcome the Indonesian Government's efforts over the past year to improve their human rights record. It is, therefore, with surprise and concern that we learned of the banning of the three journals by the Indonesian Government. The decision appears inconsistent with the greater spirit of openness prevailing in Indonesia recently.

  British Prisoners Abroad
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) of 16 June,Official Report, column 642, about United Kingdom citizens awaiting trial in overseas prisons; what action he proposes to take to monitor the number of Britains on remand for long periods in Spanish gaols; and if he will make representations on behalf of Colin Salt, currently on remand in Madrid, to press for an early court hearing.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continually monitor all British nationals on remand in Spanish gaols, especially those remanded for long periods. Our consular officers are doing all that they properly can to help those detained and their
  209
  families. However, we have no standing to intervene in the Spanish legal process itself, and it is for Mr. Salt's lawyer to press for a hearing.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what statements the Nigerian head of state has made recently about the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group forces in Liberia; what action is being proposed by the United Nations to respond to a withdrawal by the Nigerians from the ECOMOG forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In a broadcast on Radio Nigeria on 24 June, President Abacha said that Nigeria intended to pull out of Liberia. In his fifth progress report on the United Nations Observer Mission in Liberia, the United Nations Secretary-General noted concerns expressed by the President of Nigeria at the financial burden of participation in ECOMOG. The Secretary-General urged that troops should not be withdrawn precipitately and undertook to endeavour to obtain additional financial support from member states. The United States has contributed about US$30 million, while we have provided US$1 million of humanitarian aid.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitments were made by the Nigerian Minister of Information and Culture when he met recently with the British high commissioner to Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's high commissioner called on the Nigerian Minister of Information and Culture on 17 June. The Minister stated the Nigerian Government's commitment to hand over to a democratically elected Government in the shortest possible time.

TREASURY

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in respect of maintaining the long-term growth rate of the economy when world interest rates rise.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government will continue to follow domestic policies which create the right conditions for sustainable growth by maintaining low inflation and sound public finances and by a continuing programme of reform designed to improve the efficiency of markets and strengthen the long-term supply performance of the economy.

  Contracts
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department has spent on management consultancy contracts in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 14 June,Official Report, columns 349–51.

  Management Reorganisation
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of Treasury staff he proposes to redeploy or make redundant under management reorganisation.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury is currently undergoing a fundamental review of its expenditure. Until the results of this are available, the implications of any management reorganisation will not be clear.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the rules of guidance for profit-related pay schemes drawn up by the Inland Revenue covering(a) the involvement in profit-related pay of schemes not based on companies, (b) restrictions on conversion of existing pay into profit-related pay, (c) the definition and calculation of profit in profit-related pay and (d) other relevant matters.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue publishes two booklets to help employers who would like to introduce a profit-related pay scheme which qualifies for tax relief. These are "Tax Relief for Profit-Related Pay: Notes for Guidance", PRP2, and "Tax Relife for Profit-Related Pay. Setting up a Scheme". I understand that a copy of both booklets is available in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the growth in numbers of profit-related pay schemes, and participants in profit-related pay with a regional breakdown of schemes; and if he will also estimate the revenue forgone in each year of profit-related pay together with the current year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information is in the table. The data are not centrally available to produce a regional breakdown of schemes. This could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Live schemes as at

  Number of schemes

  Number of employee participants

  March 1988

  616

  90,000

  March 1989

  869

  122,100

  March 1990

  1,175

  232,000

  March 1991

  1,277

  350,100

  March 1992

  2,597

  718,100

  March 1993

  4,615

  1,167,400

  March 1994

  7,039

  1,794,100

  Estimated cost of income tax relief for PRP

  1987–88

  1—

  1988–89

  10

  1989–90

  15

  1990–91

  25

  1991–92

  40

  1992–93

  200

  1993–94

  300

  1994–95

  n/y/a

  1Negligible.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what facilities his Department provides for the parking of the bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.

  Mr. Nelson
  Bicycle parking facilities are available at the Treasury's offices in Westminster and Victoria for the use of staff and visitors.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the Inland Revenue guidance on capital allowances for research and development; if he will outline the circumstances under which expenditure on the development of a specific product or technique qualifies for such allowance; if he will outline the legal or administrative source for the definition of research and development; and whether the guidance or definitions are currently under review.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Section 139(1) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 defines scientific research as covering"any activities in the fields of natural or applied science for the extension of knowledge".
  Whether any particular activities fall within this definition will depend on the facts of the case. However, in general terms, activities constitute scientific research if they involve the application of new scientific principles in an existing area of research or the application of existing principles in a new area of research. The essential test is innovation.

  Scientific research is generally regarded as including the development of a piece of fundamental research up to the production stage. Expenditure on construction of prototypes, pilot plant and so on qualifies for scientific research allowances if the prototypes are used to test the results of the basic research or the possibility of applying the results of the basic research to manufacture.

  The Inland Revenue's main internal instruction books will be published as soon as practicable in accordance with the code of practice on access to Government information. Details of the publication arrangements should be available within the next few weeks.

  Unit Trust Industry
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the regulatory organisations and Government Departments which have a role to play in relation to the unit trust industry, with their respective responsibilities.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The Securities and Investments Board is responsible for authorising unit trusts and for product regulation of authorised unit trusts—AUTs. It also oversees self-regulating organisations—SROs—recognised under the Financial Services Act 1986. Trustees and managers of AUTs may be authorised either directly from SIB or through membership of an SRO.

  (b) The Investment Management Regulatory Organisation is the SRO for regulation of fund management.

  (c) Regulation of retail sales at present falls within the scope of the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation for marketing of AUT products, and the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association for independent financial advisers who offer investment advice to the general public. From 18 July, these functions will fall primarily to the Personal Investment Authority, or in certain instances to IMRO.

  212

  (d) Certain professional bodies also recognised by SIB under the FSA (RPBs) regulate the sale and marketing of AUTs through their member firms. The main ones are the various professional accountancy bodies—ICAEW, ICAS, ICAI and CACA—the Insurance Brokers Registration Council and the three law societies.

  (e) The Treasury is responsible, under the FSA, for general policy oversight relating to collective investment schemes, including questions of whether responsibility for further functions relating to the investment and borrowing powers of AUTs should be transferred to SIB.

  Air Passenger Duty, Basle and Geneva
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of air passenger duty will apply to flights to Basle and Geneva airports.

  Sir John Cope
  Both Basle and Geneva airports are in the unusual position of straddling Switzerland and France and allowing passengers to choose into which country to exit the airport. It would therefore be impossible to charge the higher £10 duty rate, as there is no distinction on a passenger's ticket to indicate whether he intends to enter Switzerland or France, and in any case, the extra £5 would be relatively easy to avoid by leaving the airport through a different exit and crossing a land frontier into Switzerland.

  It has therefore been agreed that flights to Basle and Geneva may exceptionally be treated as subject to the lower £5 duty rate.

  Alternative Vehicle Fuel
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the use of excise duty and tax rates to encourage the use of natural gas as an alternative fuel for motor vehicles.

  Sir John Cope
  The rate of excise duty on natural gas used as a road fuel is currently half the rate applied to leaded petrol. When deciding the rates of duty on road fuels, all relevant factors are taken into consideration, including revenue yield, conservation of finite fuel resources and the effects of fuel usage on the environment.

  Privatisation Proceeds
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what working assumptions he is now using in his medium term financial strategy for privatisation proceeds over the period 1994–95 to 1998–99.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The medium-term financial strategy in the 1994–95 "Financial Settlement and Budget Report" assumed privatisation proceeds of £5·5 billion in 1994–95 and £1 billion a year after. The assumption for 1995–96 was raised to £2·5 billion in the summer economic forecast, to reflect the latest assessment of likely proceeds from later instalments from the sale of the Government's residual stakes in the generating companies and from the sale of its other residual equity and debt holdings.

  Summer Economic Forecast
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide forecasts of public expenditure in 1996–97 on the same basis as table 2.2 of the Treasury's "Summer Economic Forecast 1994".

  Mr. Portillo
  The summer economic forecast is a short-term forecast which, for public finances, covers the
  213
  period up to 1995–96. Medium-term fiscal projections are published only in the medium-term financial strategy at Budget time.

  At its meeting on 23 June, Cabinet decided that control total spending should be kept within the cash ceilings announced in the Budget last year. Revised projections of the other components of general Government expenditure will be published in the Budget in November.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the review of the Building Societies Act 1986.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: In January, I announced a review of the Building Societies Act 1986 to explore the scope for a further liberalisation of the building societies legislation. The review, which was to be in two stages, was to look at the main restrictions of the Act, including the wholesale funding limit and procedures relating to mergers, conversions and takeovers.

  The initial stage was to be concluded by the early summer and, if the case for making more extensive changes to the legislation needed to be explored, there would be a wider consultation in the autumn, with the aim of concluding the review by the end of the year.

  The first stage is now complete and we have reached a number of conclusions:

  Building societies have a valuable part to play in maintaining a competitive market in retail financial services.

  They should be enabled to continue and develop that role.

  The process of steady, orderly rationalisation within the sector should be allowed to continue.

  The extension of societies' powers in specific areas needs to be accompanied by improvements in the accountability of their boards to the members.

  Smaller societies have a particular part to play in their local communities.

  Societies dominate housing finance and personal savings because they offer a high standard of service to their customers. Their low-cost operations represent keen competition for banks and other providers of financial services, to the benefit of consumers. They are among the few major financial institutions based outside London. They provide diversity and choice.

  There is, however, a need to improve the accountability of societies' boards to their members. During the first stage of the review, a number of respondents pointed out that directors are under no obligation to inform members of takeover offers from institutions outside the sector. When a suitable opportunity arises, the Government intend to bring before the House legislation to require boards to inform the members, at the next general meeting, of any such non-confidential offers which they have received, in the same way as they must do now for merger bids from other societies.

  In order to give societies the opportunities that they need to develop, the gradual process of extending the range of activities which they are permitted to undertake should continue. So I am announcing today a package of specific measures, which we propose to implement by secondary legislation, either under the Building Societies Act or by making use, after its enactment, of the general power in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill currently before Parliament.

  The most important changes will be: an increase in the wholesale funding limit from 40 to 50 per cent; the granting of powers to establish subsidiaries to make loans
  214
  to incorporated bodies that are not secured on land; and the power to own a general insurance company offering buildings and contents, and mortgage payment protection insurance policies. All these changes will be subject to prudential control by the Building Societies Commission.

  These changes will introduce a further element of competition into markets where societies have previously not operated, or have operated only as agents of others, and give them much of the additional flexibility which many have told us that they need. To allow societies to continue to play their part in this country's financial life, and to discourage destabilising flows of funds, on the basis of takeover rumours, the Government believe that it will continue to be necessary for there to be stringent statutory controls on takeovers by existing commercial companies—as was Parliament's intention in passing the 1986 Act.

  Societies will continue to be carefully monitored by the Building Societies Commission and subject to competition law. The implications of the decision to allow societies to own general insurance companies will also be taken into account in the Government's response—promised for later this year—to the recent report by the Director General of Fair Trading which recommended the implementation of the provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act relating to tying-in.

  The Government have now decided that it would be useful to proceed with the second stage of this review, to examine further how best to promote the process of evolutionary change in the building society sector.

  This stage will involve considering ideas for further improving the accountability of directors to members—in particular, whether it should be made easier to allow candidates nominated by the members to serve as directors, while continuing to ensure that boards have the necessary mix of skills and experience to do their job.

  Meanwhile the Building Societies Commission will be finalising its new prudential guidance on boards and management and on a new requirement for a greater degree of disclosure in societies' annual accounts.

  We will consider, too, a number of other specific changes to the legislation which have been put to us by the Building Societies Association. These include a review of the financial and other limits in the 1986 Act which can be altered only by statutory instrument; clarification of section 18 of the Act, dealing with powers to invest in subsidiaries; facilitating larger distributions of funds to members in a merger; a review of societies' basic lending powers, set out in sections 10 to 13; and giving societies the power to acquire mortgage debts directly, rather than through subsidiaries.

  The Government also see merit in giving further thought to whether societies' powers could be more systematically streamlined—for example by replacing the current prescriptive provisions with a more permissive structure. At the same time, we would need to consider what constraints had to be retained to ensure that the main business of a building society remained the provision of residential mortgages, savings accounts and other financial services to its members.

  Many of the changes to be considered in the second stage of the review will require primary legislation for their implementation and finding time for this will, of course, depend upon a suitable opportunity becoming available.

  The Treasury will be issuing, during the summer, a consultation paper on the issues raised in the second, and

  215
  final, stage of the review, with the aim of concluding the review, in line with the timetable which I announced in January, by the end of the year.

  In pursuit of our policy of more open government, I am placing a copy of the background papers, produced as part of the first stage, in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the yield from the uniform business rate in Northern Ireland each year since its introduction.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have been asked to reply.

  The uniform business rate as such does not operate in Northern Ireland due to the different arrangements for financing local government services. There is a non-domestic rate and in 1994–95 this is expected to raise some £212 million.

HEALTH

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in(a) York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) England were prescribed minor tranquillisers in each year since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Drug Dependency
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where are the nearest(a) regional drug dependency unit, (b) drug rehabilitation unit and (c) drug detoxification unit to York; and how many York patients attended each of them in the last year.

  Mr. Bowis
  The nearest drug dependency unit to York providing in-patient detoxification is in the Leeds health authority at High Royds hospital, Menston, although within York health services trust consultant psychiatrists do offer assessment and detoxification on an in-patient basis, followed by rehabilitation and support as an out-patient. The nearest regional drug dependency units to York are located at the northern regional alcohol and drug service in Newcastle and Drugs North West at Prestwich.

  In York, services, including community-based rehabilitation, counselling and aftercare are provided by the following non-statutory agencies:
  The York Drug Dependency Clinic, 28 High Petergate, York; and York Drugs Resource Scheme, 15 Bridge Street, York.

  A small independent sector service offering residential and out-patient services is available at
  The Retreat, 107 Heslington Road, York.

  Information on the number of York patients who attended the above services may be obtained locally.

  Secure Hospitals
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients suffering from mental illness escaped from the care of secure hospitals in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) 1993; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her definition of arrival used in the patients charter indicator for accident and emergency departments; and if the definition used includes any delays waiting to see a receptionist.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Arrival in accident and emergency departments is defined as arrival at the point of entry. It does not include any delays waiting to see a receptionist.

  Cancer
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional cancer screening programmes are at present under review; when those reviews are expected to be completed; and which agencies or people are carrying out the reviews.

  Mr. Sackville
  Any introduction of new screening programmes relies on the existence of accurate and evaluated research. Currently, research is being undertaken in a number of cancer screening areas. The Department of Health's standing group on health technology assessment is in the process of commissioning evaluations of screening for colorectal and prostate cancer.

  Cycle Helmets
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy on the use of helmets by child cyclists.

  Mr. Bowis
  There is considerable evidence of the benefits of cycle helmets in mitigating the effects of head injuries to cyclists of all ages.

  Waiting Lists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the estimated cost of reducing waiting lists to under two years; and what estimates she has made of the costs of reducing the waiting lists further.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Between 1987–88 and 1993–94, the Government provided £252 million to fund the waiting time initiative. One of the many targets of the initiative was to reduce to less than two years the maximum length of time a patient would wait for hospital treatment. New initiatives to reduce hospital waiting times are constantly being considered.

  Obstetric Cholestasis
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will institute discussions with deans of medical colleges to ensure that obstetric cholestasis is adequately covered in their curricula.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. It is for the university medical schools to determine the curricula for medical education. They do so in the light of recommendations from the education committee of the General Medical Council, which has the statutory authority to determine the extent of the knowledge and skill required for the granting of primary medical qualifications in the United Kingdom.

  Gender Identity Disorder
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to allow the amendment of birth register entries to recognise gender identity disorder sufferers in their reassigned roles.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The birth register is a record of historical fact; it is not, nor does it purport to be, a record of current status or identity. Corrections to entries in the birth register may be made only where an error is shown to have existed when the birth was registered.

  Infertility
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the relationship between her answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) of 18 February,Official Report, column 1041, and her answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) of 20 June, Official Report, column 26.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service provides a wide range of treatment for subfertility but information about the services available in specific places is not generally available centrally. It is for individual health authorities to determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Rio Declaration
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the precise provisions of principle 8 of agenda 21 of the Rio declaration of June 1992; what is her policy in respect of implementing those provisions; and what specific policies have been adopted by her Department in respect of those aspects of principle 8 which commit signatories to achieve sustainable development through the adoption of appropriate demographic policies.

  Mr. Sackville
  In common with other Governments participating in the Rio summit, the United Kingdom accepts the broad principles enshrined in the Rio declaration. The Government's commitments to sustainable developments are set out in "Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy", published in January 1994, copies of which are available in the Library. Policies are formed with regard to the well-being of the population—for example in the fields of social, economic and environmental planning—rather than with regard to population size or growth.

  Access to Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests for environmental information under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992 have been received by her Department; how many were answered within two months; how many were refused; and on what grounds in each case.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not keep records of the number of requests received under the environmental information regulations or of when they were answered. The Department does, however, keep records of refusals to supply information and on what grounds.

  In the period 1 January 1993 up to 30 June 1994, the Department made no refusals.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department has had with the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment concerning reducing air pollution.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's officials have frequent discussions with their colleagues in the Departments of Transport and of the Environment.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies her Department has undertaken in the last three years to investigate the correlation between levels of air pollution and the number of people being admitted to hospital with breathing problems.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department funded a research project which examined the effects of the December 1991 air pollution episode in London when the highest recorded peak of nitrogen dioxide occurred. This study included investigations of the increased admissions to hospital and increased mortality occurring during the week containing the episode. An outline of the results of this study has been presented to the British Thoracic Society. As soon as the full report is available, it will be put for comments to the Department of Health's expert advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants.

  There are several other studies of the health effects of air pollution that are being funded by other Departments or establishments. When published, the results of the United Kingdom studies are referred to COMEAP and COMEAP sub-groups.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what is her Department's estimate of the number of people who are admitted to hospital each year as a result of breathing toxic exhaust fumes.

  Mr. Sackville
  Hospital admissions are not recorded according to cause of illness and it is not possible, on present information, to make any reliable estimate of the numbers admitted as a result of breathing toxic exhaust fumes.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will give a breakdown by nature and severity of disabilty of the numbers of disabled people who are currently registered in England and Wales;

  (2) how many of those individuals registered disabled in England and Wales experience mobility problems; how many are confined to wheelchairs; and what information she has as to the extent of mobility problems experienced by those registered disabled persons with such mobility problems, but who are not confined to wheelchairs.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of persons who are registered as having a physical disability in England at 31 March 1993 by category of disability was published in "Registers of Physically Disabled Persons (General Classes) (A/F/93/19), a copy of which is available in the Library. Information on mobility problems and wheelchair use is not available centrally.

  Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what involvement the British Technology Group has had with the Public Health Laboratory Service on the issues of BSE and Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Public Health Laboratory Service has had no direct involvement with the British Technology Group on these issues.

  Dr. Harash Narang
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the suspension of Dr. Harash Narang from the Public Health Laboratory Service.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter between Dr. Narang and his employer, the Public Health Laboratory Service.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for each NHS trust in the former Mersey region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: Eighty-eight—60 per cent.—of the 146 chairmen and non-executive directors appointed to national health service trusts within the former Mersey region live within the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated. The names of the appointees who live outside the relevant district health authority boundaries are listed.

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital (Alder Hey) NHS Trust

  Mr. I. F. Hill

  Mrs. S. Adams

  Mr. J. C. Davies

  Mr. F. W. Taylor

  Broadgreen Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. F. A. Fenney

  Mr. P. E. Ashworth

  Mr. J. R. Miller

  Mrs. A. Toyne

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. J. B. Fitzpatrick

  Mr. D. K. Anslow

  Mr. E. J. Billington

  Ms P. J. Newell

  Professor Sir Robert Shields

  Chester and Halton Community NHS Trust

  Professor I. M. Stanley

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. J. R. Higham

  Miss A. Jones

  North Mersey Community NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Jones

  Mr. J. E. Barton

  Mr. P. A. Fletcher

  Mrs. J. Hall

  Mr. K. Hutchinson

  Ms M. Kitchen

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Farmer

  Mr. J. B. Cooper

  Mr. J. F. Jones

  220
  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology Services NHS Trust

  Mrs. J. L Greensmith

  Mrs. L. A. Dodd

  Mr. C. Parkinson

  Mrs. C. Parnaby

  St. Helens and Knowsley Community NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Seneschall

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. M. E. Emberton

  Mrs. D. M. McConnell

  Halton General Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. D. W. Hammond

  Mrs. S. Anderson

  Dr. K. M MacVicker

  Mr. M. C. Stewart

  Southport and Formby Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Miss L. Brown

  Warrington Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mrs. S. Grundy

  Mr. M. J. Davies

  Warrington Hospital NHS Trust

  Mrs. K. H. Howell

  West Cheshire NHS Trust

  Mr. H. De Winter

  Cardiothoracic Centre NHS Trust

  Mr. H. Clarke

  Mrs. M. E. Downs

  Mr. M. G. Rider

  Mr. N. A. Toppin

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mr. S. B. Mayne

  Mr. M. S. Potts

  Mr. G. Thomas

  Ms R. Webster

  The Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery NHS Trust

  Mr. P. Wright

  Mrs. M. Craddock

  Mr. M. Hughes

  Mrs. N. Edwards

  Mr. D. Snewin

  Mr. M. Taylor

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHS Trust

  Dr. R. J. Berry

  Dr. D. T. Jones

  Mr. P. J. Marchant

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each NHS trust in the former north western region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 30 June 1994]: Some 152—70 per cent—of the 218 chairmen and non-executive directors appointed to a national health service trust within the former north western region live within the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated. The names of those who live outside the relevant district health authority boundaries are listed.

  Burnley health care NHS trust

  Mr. D. G. Nelson

  The Calderstones NHS trust

  Mrs. A. Knowles

  Central Manchester healthcare NHS trust

  Mr. J. Dunlop

  221

  Mr. D. H. Slade

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS trust

  Councillor J. E. Breakell

  Mrs. G. Ashworth

  Christie hospital NHS trust

  Mr. J. R. Lee

  Mrs. R. Dean

  Sir R. Baker-Wilbraham

  Mr. E. Kinder

  Mrs. J. Roston

  Rochdale healthcare NHS trust

  Mr. J. M. Holt

  Mr. J. P. Conway

  Mr. A. R. Teague

  West Lancashire NHS trust

  Mrs. C. A. Thompson

  Mr. M. R. Rigby

  Mrs. M. A. Pickney

  Wigan and Leigh health services NHS trust

  Ms C. S. Jackson

  Mrs. M. E. Holdroyde

  Wrightington hospital NHS trust

  Mr. D. R. Blackburn

  Dr. A. Brearley

  Mrs. J. L. Eckersley Hope

  Mr. S. Brennand

  Bury health care NHS trust

  Mr. E. S. Schofield

  Mancunian community health NHS trust

  Mrs. J. A. Hytner

  Colonel J. B. Timmins

  Mrs. K. M. August

  Mental Health Services of Salford NHS Trust

  Mr. M. A. Freeman

  Mr. W. Smith

  Mrs. L. Frank-Riley

  Professor P. J. Huxley

  Mr. M. H. Jowett

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. D. G. Wilson

  Mrs. M. S. Langton

  Mr. H. W. Jungmayr

  Mrs. P. H. McCann

  Guild Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mrs. P. Diamond

  Salford Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Mr. E. Parker

  Ms. M. Wilkinson

  Salford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. P. W. Mount

  Professor R. C. Tallis

  Mrs. L. Fairfield

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. J. P. Hadfield

  Mr. P. E. Jones

  Lady J. Montgomery

  Professor A. M. Heagerty

  Miss K. M. Mellor

  Stockport Acute Services NHS Trust

  Mr. A. M. Linton

  Mrs. P. Pownall

  Mr. R. J. Kenyon

  Mrs. A. Walsh

  Stockport Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mrs. S. A. Carroll

  Mr. K. M. Parker

  222

  Miss K. M. Ball

  Mrs. D. A. Green

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  Mr. A. R. Favell

  Mr. A. J. Leah

  Mr. G. S. Kalton

  Mr. G. Linnell

  Mr. A. R. Tighe

  Tameside and Glossop Community and Priority Services NHS Trust

  Mrs. M. G. Travers

  Mr. P. Hague

  Dr. B. A. Broadbent

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. J. N. Chatburn

  Mr. I. A. Jolly

  Mr. P. Layhe

  Sight Tests
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 15 June,Official Report, columns 589–90, what estimates of the total number of NHS and private sight tests have been made for each of the last five financial years; and what estimates of the total number of NHS and private sight tests for 1993–94 have been made by the technical sub-committee of the Department of Health and the ophthalmic profession.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: (a) The number of National Health Service sight tests paid for in the last five financial years for which figures are available in Great Britain are shown in the table.

  Number of NHS sight tests paid for by financial year

  Great Britain (millions

  11989–90

  6·0

  11990–91

  4·8

  1991–92

  5·8

  1992–93

  6·4

  21993–94

  6·9

  1From 1 April 1989, NHS sight tests were restricted to certain eligible groups in the population. The figures for 1989–90 included 1·82 million sight tests paid for in 1989–90 but conducted in 1988–89 under the previous scheme. The remaining 4·22 million were conducted and paid for in 1989–90, which does not constitute a full twelve months of the new scheme. The figures for 1990–91, which do represent twelve months under the new scheme, are not therefore directly comparable with those for 1989–90.

  2This figure is provisional.

  (b) From the survey carried out on behalf of the technical sub-committee, it was estimated that the total number of sight tests performed in Great Britain in 1993–94 would be 6·594 million NHS and 6·589 million private.

  Research and Development
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been(a) her Department's and (b) the NHS's research and development spend in (a)1990–91, (b)1991–92, (c) 1992–93 and (d) 1993–94; what is the planned amount for 1994–95; and how much of these totals is used to fund research.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: The information on central research and development

  223
  expenditure by the Department of Health, including the national health service executive, is collected annually in the "Forward Look of Government-Funded Science, Engineering and Technology". The information for 1990–91 is available in the "1993 Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development". Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Information on NHS research and development commissioned at regional and local level is not collected by the Department.

  Police Surgeons
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many police surgeons there were in each of the last five years by local authority and region.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  ENI Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what transactions his Department has had since 1979 with the ENI Group of companies.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department has no record of any transaction with the ENI Group.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to arrange a meeting with the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc to discuss the commercial implications for nuclear reprocessing and the oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield of a delay in the Japanese plutonium fuel re-use policy.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent communications he has received from the United States Department of Energy in regard to the historic use or current disposition of the plutonium from United Kingdom civil reactors exported to the United States since 1964 under the provisions of the Anglo-American agreement on the "Co-operation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes" of 1958, Cm. 537, as amended.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 8 February 1994,Official Report, columns 227–28.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) of 22 June,Official Report, column 230, if he will exceptionally give details of the three export licences issued to Argentina for defence equipment, to which the reply refers.
  224
  Mr. Needham
  The export licences referred to covered sporting shotgun cartridges and humane cattle stunning blanks. None of the goods were covered by the arms embargo.

  I cannot give more information for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Oil and Gas, Scotland
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of United Kingdom oil and gas production comes from Scotland at the latest available date; and what was the proportion in 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  Nearly all of the United Kingdom's oil and natural gas production comes from the offshore part of the United Kingdom continental shelf. In 1993, this accounted for 97.4 per cent. of production, with the remaining 2·6 per cent. coming from onshore production in England. The corresponding proportions in 1979 were 99·9 per cent. and 0·1 per cent. respectively.

  Iran
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further exceptions there have been concerning the Government's export licensing policy towards Iran following his statement of 18 January,Official Report, column 509.

  Mr. Needham
  As I said in my earlier statement, a number of representations have been received by my Department concerning export business entered into before the moratorium on export licenses was imposed on 17 December 1992. We have identified a second case concerning the completion of a contract for repair and overhaul in the United Kingdom of non-lethal aircraft components.

  Given the circumstances, we have agreed to issue a licence for a small number of components to be returned to their owners in Iran unrepaired.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the membership and terms of reference of the deregulation task force.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The terms of reference of the dereguation task force, chaired by the right hon. Francis Maude are:To help the President of the Board of Trade promote deregulation which will enhance the competitiveness of United Kingdom business and the effectiveness of the voluntary sector.
  To advise him on action for Government Departments and associated bodies or agencies to take to remove unnecessary regulation or to reduce the burden of necessary regulation. This will include domestic, European and international regulation enforced in the United Kingdom.
  The members are:
  Tessa Baring (Barnados), David Campbell (Fine Organics), Maurice Denyer (Fowler Bros.), Michael Fallon (Management Consultant), Mike Fisher (Whale Tankers), Teresa Graham (Baker Tilly), George Goring (Goring Hotel), Janet Morgan (Sainsbury Family Trusts), Archie Norman (Asda), Tim Parker (Kenwood), David Parry (Business Consultant), Tony Rammelt (Regis), Dan Wright (Albion Automotive) and Peter Wyman (Coopers and Lybrand).

  Other appointments may be made in due course.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: All my Department's written answers are printed on recycled paper. Press notices have to be printed in substantial numbers and are printed, on the advice of the printing machine manufacturers, on environmentally friendly paper manufactured from wood from sustainable sources.

  Competitiveness White Paper
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total financial cost of publicising his competitiveness White Paper, including unsolicited letters to companies.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on 14 June 1994, Official Report, columns 423–24.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much subsidy for extra sales of deep-mined coal, as outlined in "Prospects for Coal" was paid out by 31 March; how many contracts this involves; what was the tonnage of coal involved in that contract; and what is his estimate of the financial support that will be paid in 1994–95.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: To date, the Department has paid £3,237,639 of subsidy covering the sale of 361,523 tonnes of additional coal in 1993–94. Of this, £651,966 was paid by 31 March. The remainder was paid in June following receipt of authorisation from the European Commission for payments in respect of production from 1 January 1994 onwards.

  Altogether the Department has made six offers of subsidy in relation to seven contracts covering some 2 million tonnes of coal. The total amount of subsidy paid in 1994–95 will depend on how successful British Coal and the private sector are in securing further sales.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimate for the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of(a) the number of absent parents who have been assessed by the Child Support Agency and (b) the proportion of those who have made payments as a result of such assessment.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 6 July 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of people assessed by the Child Support Agency, and the number of people paying child maintenance.
  226
  To the end of April 1994, 225,600 absent parents had been assessed by the Agency. I regret that a breakdown of those assessed in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas is not available.
  With regard to how many absent parents are paying, the Child Support Computer System records client's details on an individual case by case basis, and it is not configured to produce information on the total number of absent parents paying maintenance.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) deductions from earnings orders, (b) poindings and warrant sales and (c) arrestments of bank and building society accounts the Child Support Agency has pursued in Scotland; and what amounts of money have been recovered in each case.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 6 July 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the deductions from earnings orders issued by the Child Support Agency; the number of poindings and warrant sales pursued; and number of arrestments of bank and building society accounts.
  To the end of April 1994, deductions from earnings orders had been carried out in 3,800 cases. I regret that a figure for Scotland is not available separately. It is not possible to provide details of the amount of money collected as this is not identified separately from other receipts.
  To the same date, the Agency has pursued no poindings and warrant sales, nor arrestments of bank and building society accounts.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what have been the total amounts recovered by the compensation recovery unit in each year since its formation;

  (2) in how many cases since its formation the compensation recovery unit has reclaimed money from the bereaved;

  (3) what have been the amounts recovered by the compensation recovery unit in each year since its formation from sufferers of asbestos-related diseases or their surviving relatives.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the compensation recovery unit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 5 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking in each year since its formation (i) the total amounts recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit, (ii) in how many cases it has reclaimed money from the bereaved, (iii) what amounts have been recovered from sufferers of asbestosis related diseases or their surviving relatives.
  The total amounts recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) are as follows:
  227

  Period

  Amount Recovered £ million

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  3·7

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  25·3

  1 April 1992–31 March 1993

  51·3

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  81·9

  The full range of information for your other questions is not available because this information prior to 1993 is no longer held on the CRU computer system. However, I can tell you that in the period 1 April 1993–31 March 1994 there were 170 recoveries made in cases involving deceased claimants and in the same period £408,665 recovered in relation to asbestosis (the system is not designed to identify asbestosis related diseases).I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Childcare Disregard
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables similar to those in his Department's 1993 tax benefit model tables, but with rents, council tax, benefits and direct taxes updated to 1994, showing the net weekly spending power of a lone mother with two children aged four and six years, now and after introduction of the childcare disregard for family credit, on the assumptions she is(a) not in paid work, (b) working part time earning the maximum income support earnings disregard, (c) working part time for 16 hours earning £40 per week, (d) working part time for 24 hours earning £60 a week and (e) working full time and earning weekly sums from £100 to £300 in increments of £10 and assuming childcare costs of £25 when working 16 hours a week, of £40 when working 24 hours a week, and of £70 when working full time.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables. The childcare disregard will be introduced in October and will apply to the calculation of housing benefit, council tax benefit and disability working allowance as well as family credit. Up to £40 of childcare costs for children under 11 will be disregarded against earnings, provided that care is arranged with a registered childminder or nursery.

  The level of earnings in some of the questions is particularly low and not representative of the average working lone parent. In addition, some of the childcare costs specified are significantly higher than those typically encountered at the level of earning specified. Recent research1 shows that the average weekly childcare costs of working lone parents are £24·60 per week.

  "Families, Work, and Benefit" (Policy Studies Institute, June 1993). Lone mother with 2 children aged 4 and 6. Position at April 1994 and October 1994

  £

  (a) Not in paid work

  Gross earnings

  0·00

  Tax

  0·00

  National insurance

  0·00

  Take home pay

  0·00

  Income support

  67·55

  Family credit

  0·00

  Child benefit

  24 60

  Rent

  36·42

  Rent rebate

  36·42

  Council tax

  8·30

  Council tax benefit

  8·30

  FSM/FWF

  6·80

  Child care costs

  0·00

  Total net income

  143·67

  Net income after Rent, Council tax, child care costs

  98·65

  228

  Position at April 1994 and October 1994

  £

  (b) Working part-time earning the maximum income support disregard

  Gross earnings

  15·00

  Tax

  0·00

  National insurance

  0·00

  Take home pay

  15·00

  Income support

  67·55

  Family credit

  0·00

  Child benefit

  24·60

  Rent

  36·42

  Rent rebate

  36·42

  Council tax

  8·30

  Council tax benefit

  8·30

  FSM/FWF

  6·80

  Child care costs

  0·00

  Total net income

  158·67

  Net income after Rent, Council tax, child care costs

  113·95

  Position at April 1994

  £

  (c) Working part-time for 16 hours earning £40·00 per week with child care

  Gross earnings

  40·00

  Tax

  0·00

  National insurance

  0·00

  Take home pay

  40·00

  Income support

  0·00

  Family credit

  66·70

  Child benefit

  24·60

  Rent

  36·42

  Rent rebate

  31·22

  Council tax

  8·30

  Council tax benefit

  6·70

  FSM/FWF

  0·00

  Child care costs

  25·00

  Total net income

  169·22

  Net income after Rent, Council tax, child care costs

  99·50

  Position at October 1994

  £

  Child care allowance=£25·00

  Gross earnings

  40·00

  Tax

  0·00

  National insurance

  0·00

  Take home pay

  40·00

  Income support

  0·00

  Family credit

  66·70

  Child benefit

  24·60

  Rent

  36·42

  Rent rebate

  36·32

  Council tax

  8·30

  Council tax benefit

  8·30

  FSM/FWF

  0·00

  Child care costs

  25·00

  Total net income

  176·02

  Net income after Rent, Council tax, child care costs

  106·30

  Position at April 1994

  £

  (d) Working part-time for 24 hours earning £60.00 per week with child care

  Gross earnings

  60·00

  Tax

  0·00

  NI

  1·44

  Take home pay

  58·56

  Income support

  0·00

  Family credit

  66·70

  Child benefit

  24·60

  229

  £

  Rent

  36·42

  Rent rebate

  19·16

  Council tax

  8·30

  Council tax benefit

  2·99

  FSM/FWF

  0·00

  Child care costs

  40·00

  Total net income

  172·01

  Net income after Rent, Council tax, child care costs

  87·29

  Position at October 1994

  £

  Child care allowance=£40·

  Gross earnings

  60·00

  Tax

  0·00

  e: Working full-time with child care costs of £70·00 Position at April 1994

  Gross earnings

  Tax (£)

  NI (£)

  Take home pay (£)

  Income support (£)

  Family credit (£)

  Child benefit (£)

  Rent (£)

  Rent rebate (£)

  Council tax (£)

  Council tax benefit (£)

  FSM/FWF (£)

  Child care costs (£)

  Total net income (£)

  Net income after rent, council tax child care costs (£)

  100·00

  0·14

  5·44

  94·42

  0·00

  50·79

  24·60

  36·42

  6·19

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  176·00

  61·28

  110·00

  2·14

  6·44

  101·42

  0·00

  45·89

  24·60

  36·42

  4·82

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  176·73

  62·01

  120·00

  4·14

  7·44

  108·42

  0·00

  40·99

  24·60

  36·42

  3·46

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  177·47

  62·75

  130·00

  6·44

  8·44

  115·12

  0·00

  36·31

  24·60

  36·42

  2·15

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  178·18

  63·46

  140·00

  8·94

  9·44

  121·62

  0·00

  31·76

  24·60

  36·42

  0·88

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  178·86

  64·14

  150·00

  11·44

  10·44

  128·12

  0·00

  27·21

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  179·93

  65·21

  160·00

  13·94

  11·44

  134·62

  0·00

  22·66

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  181·88

  67·16

  170·00

  16·44

  12·44

  141·12

  0·00

  18·11

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  183·83

  69·11

  180·00

  18·94

  13·44

  147·62

  0·00

  13·56

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  185·78

  71·06

  190·00

  21·44

  14·44

  154·12

  0·00

  9·01

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  187·73

  73·01

  200·00

  23·94

  15·44

  160·62

  0·00

  4·46

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  189·68

  74·96

  210·00

  26·44

  16·44

  167·12

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  191·72

  77·00

  220·00

  28·94

  17·44

  173·62

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  198·22

  83·50

  230·00

  31·44

  18·44

  180·12

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  204·72

  90·00

  240·00

  33·94

  19·44

  186·62

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  211·22

  96·50

  250·00

  36·44

  20·44

  193·12

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  217·22

  103·00

  260·00

  38·94

  21·44

  199·62

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  224·22

  109·50

  270·00

  41·44

  22·44

  206·12

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  230·72

  116·00

  280·00

  43·94

  23·44

  212·62

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  237·22

  122·50

  290·00

  46·44

  24·44

  219·12

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  243·72

  129·00

  300·00

  48·94

  25·44

  225·62

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  250·22

  135·50

  Position at October 1994

  Child care allowance=£40·00

  Gross earnings

  Tax (£)

  NI (£)

  Take home pay (£)

  Income support (£)

  Family credit (£)

  Child benefit (£)

  Rent (£)

  Rent rebate (£)

  Council tax (£)

  Council tax benefit (£)

  FSM/FWF (£)

  Child care costs (£)

  Total net income (£)

  Net income after rent, council tax child care costs (£)

  100·00

  0·14

  5·44

  94·42

  0·00

  66·70

  24·60

  36·42

  21·84

  8·30

  3·82

  0·00

  70·00

  211·38

  96·66

  110·00

  2·14

  6·44

  101·42

  0·00

  66·70

  24·60

  36·42

  17·29

  8·30

  2·42

  0·00

  70·00

  212·43

  97·71

  120·00

  4·14

  7·44

  108·42

  0·00

  66·70

  24·60

  36·42

  12·74

  8·30

  1·02

  0·00

  70·00

  213·48

  98·76

  130·00

  6·44

  8·44

  115·12

  0·00

  64·31

  24·60

  36·42

  9·95

  8·30

  0·15

  0·00

  70·00

  214·13

  99·41

  140£00

  8·94

  9·44

  121·62

  0·00

  59·76

  24·60

  36·42

  8·68

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  214·66

  99·94

  150·00

  11·44

  10·44

  128·12

  0·00

  55·21

  24·60

  36·42

  7·41

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  215·34

  100·62

  160·00

  13·94

  11·44

  134·62

  0·00

  50·66

  24·60

  36·42

  6·14

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  216·02

  101·30

  170·00

  16·44

  12·44

  141·12

  0·00

  46·11

  24·60

  36·42

  4·88

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  216·71

  101·99

  180·00

  18·94

  13·44

  147·62

  0·00

  41·56

  24·60

  36·42

  3·61

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  217·39

  102·67

  190·00

  21·44

  14·44

  154·12

  0·00

  37·01

  24·60

  36·42

  2·34

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  218·07

  103·35

  200·00

  23·94

  15·44

  160·62

  0·00

  32·46

  24·60

  36·42

  1·07

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  218·75

  104·03

  210·00

  26·44

  16·44

  167·12

  0·00

  27·91

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  219·63

  104·91

  220·00

  28·94

  17·44

  173·62

  0·00

  23·36

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  221·58

  106·86

  230·00

  31·44

  18·44

  180·12

  0·00

  18·81

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  223·53

  108·81

  240·00

  33·94

  19·44

  186·62

  0·00

  14·26

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  225·48

  110·76

  250·00

  36·44

  20·44

  193·12

  0·00

  9·71

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  227·43

  112·71

  260·00

  38·94

  21·44

  199·62

  0·00

  5·16

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  229·38

  114·66

  270·00

  41·44

  22·44

  206·12

  0·00

  0·61

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  231·33

  116·61

  280·00

  43·94

  23·44

  212·62

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  237·22

  122·50

  230

  £

  NI

  1·44

  Take home pay

  58·56

  Income support

  0·00

  Family credit

  66·70

  Child benefit

  24·60

  Rent

  36·42

  Rent rebate

  36·42

  Council tax

  8·30

  Council tax benefit

  8·30

  FSM/FWF

  0·00

  Child care costs

  40·00

  Total net income

  194·58

  Net income after Rent, Council tax, child care costs

  109·86

  231

  Gross earnings

  Tax (£)

  NI (£)

  Take home pay (£)

  Income support (£)

  Family credit (£)

  Child benefit (£)

  Rent (£)

  Rent rebate (£)

  Council tax (£)

  Council tax benefit (£)

  FSM/FWF (£)

  Child care costs (£)

  Total net income (£)

  Net income after rent, council tax child care costs (£)

  290·00

  46·44

  24·44

  219·12

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  243·72

  129·00

  300·00

  48·94

  25·44

  225·62

  0·00

  0·00

  24·60

  36·42

  0·00

  8·30

  0·00

  0·00

  70·00

  250·22

  135·50

  Notes:

  1. The family is assumed to live in council property appropriate to their size and pay estimated average rent and council tax.

  2. The family is assumed to have no capital and take up entitlement to One Parent Benefit and all income-related benefits.

  3. The cash value of free school meals and welfare foods available to the family receiving Income Support is shown in the column headed FSM/FWF.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what facilities his Department provides for the parking of the bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department's HQ offices in Westminster are at Richmond house where the facilities are provided by the Department of Health. Richmond house has a cycle rack in the car park where visitors' bicycles can be parked.

  Compensation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what powers the compensation recovery unit has to reclaim money paid through invalidity benefit to people aged over 65 years who win court awards for industrial damage to their health;

  (2) what powers the compensation recovery unit has to reclaim money paid through the state pension to asbestosis sufferers who win court awards for industrial damage to their health.

  Mr. Scott
  Section 82 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and its supporting legislation requires the compensator to deduct the value of invalidity benefit and other relevant benefits and to pay this sum to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State.

  Benefits such as retirement pension, which are not paid in respect of an accident, injury or disease, are exempted from recoupment.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the reasons for his policy in respect of the money of court awards for(a) pain, (b) suffering and (c) loss of income by the compensation recovery unit from asbestosis sufferers.

  Mr. Scott
  The compensation recovery scheme is underpinned by a set of straightforward rules which are designed to be easy to understand and administer.

  Because the vast majority of compensation claims are settled informally without an allocation to separate heads of damages, it would be impracticable to introduce a mechanism for disaggregating awards. The scheme therefore has regard to the total payment of damages. The same arrangements apply to out-of-court settlements and to the one per cent. of cases settled in court.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a person receiving unemployment or sickness benefit before he has contracted asbestosis has to repay a court award for industrial disease under the rules of the compensation recovery unit.

  Mr. Scott
  The value of unemployment benefit or sickness benefit should be recovered provided it is paid in 232
  consequence of the disease for which compensation is awarded. No recovery would be made of prior benefit payments if these were not attributable to the disease.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the reasons for his policy in respect of providing credit to victims of asbestosis for previous national insurance contributions when the compensation recovery unit reclaims court awards.

  Mr. Hague
  Individuals suffering from asbestosis are awarded national insurance contribution credits in respect of each week of incapacity for which medical evidence is produced, irrespective of any action taken by the compensation recovery unit to recover amounts of contributory benefits paid. Except where they have been paid in error, current provisions do not allow for the refund of contributions, including those on which an award of contributory incapacity benefit was based, since this could have adverse effects on the individual's future benefit entitlement.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) from what date the compensation recovery unit may reclaim benefits in cases where an asbestosis sufferer wins a court award for industrial disease or damages;

  (2) what is the policy of the compensation recovery unit in respect of the length a court claim for damages from an asbestosis sufferer takes to settle and the length of claim back by the unit.

  Mr. Scott
  The period of recovery commences with the date on which a relevant benefit is first claimed in consequence of the disease and ends on the date of settlement or five years from the date of this claim, whichever is earlier. The period is not affected by the time it takes to settle a case in court.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, when he intends to publish his annual report on the social fund and the social fund commissioner's annual report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State's annual report for 1993–94 (CM 2598) has been published and laid before Parliament today. The report records that gross expenditure in 1993–94 was £442 million, the highest level of expenditure since the fund was established in 1988. This includes 1.8 million non-repayable grants and interest free loans worth £344 million; and funeral, maternity and cold weather payments worth £98 million. The gross budget allocated to the
  233
  discretionary part of the fund was £346 million, representing an increase of £29 million—nearly 10 per cent—on 1992–93.

  In 1994–95 we have built on the substantial increases of earlier years and the gross discretionary budget now stands at £353 million. Since the social fund's inception nearly 9 million discretionary grants and interest-free loans worth almost £1£6 billion have been made to people on low incomes. Cold weather payments will increase from £6 to £7 from 1 November 1994 and further increase to £7£50 a year later. These increases will enhance safeguards for the most vulnerable in the community such as elderly and disabled people and those with very young children.

  The social fund commissioner's annual report has also been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

WALES

  Location Grants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish the number of companies for each of the last 10 years which have received grants or loans in respect of locating in Wales and which have been subsequently moved from Wales, indicating the year of removal; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish for each of the last 10 years and the total for the last 10 years (i) the total cost to the Exchequer of grants or loans made in respect of companies locating in Wales, (ii) the total cost to the Exchequer of grants or loans made in respect of companies locating in Wales but which subsequently moved from Wales and (iii) the figures in (ii) as a percentage of (i);

  (3) if he will publish a list of all companies for each of the last 10 years which have received grants or loans in respect of locating in Wales and which have subsequently moved from Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the advisory bodies which he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Redwood
  The only advisory body set up in Wales since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993" last December is the Welsh Economic Council.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.

  Mr. Redwood
  None of the advisory NDPBs sponsored by the Welsh Office is required by statute to publish its advice to Government; however, they may choose to do so and some do. The objective, for example, of the housing management advisory panel is to produce good practice guidance in housing management aimed primarily at local authorities; this guidance is published.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament; and if he will list them.
  234
  Mr. Redwood
  The list is as follows:

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

  Historic Buildings Council for Wales

  Library and Information Services Council (Wales)

  In addition, the National Rivers Authority advisory committee for Wales, although not required to do so by statute, does publish an annual report, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following advisory NDPBs sponsored by the Welsh Office are required to produce annual reports:

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

  Historic Buildings Council for Wales

  Library and Information Services Council (Wales)

  Welsh Committee for Postgraduate Pharmaceutical Education

  Welsh Committee for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  Welsh Medical Committee

  Welsh Dental Committee

  Welsh Nursing and Midwifery Committee

  Welsh Optical Committee

  Welsh Pharmaceutical Committee

  Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee

  In addition, the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee for Wales, although not required to do so by statute, does publish an annual report.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory basis; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following advisory NDPBs sponsored by the Welsh Office have a statutory basis, as indicated:

  National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee for Wales
  (Section 6 of the Water Resources Act 1991.)

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees
  (Of which there are 6 in Wales, established under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976.)

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales
  (First constituted under the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act 1913, now constituted under Section 22 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.)

  Hill Farming Advisory Sub-Committee for Wales
  (Section 32 of the Hill Farming Act 1946.)

  Historic Buildings Council for Wales
  (Section 3 of Part 1 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953.)

  Library and Information Services Council (Wales)
  (Section 2 of the Public Libraries and Museum Act 1964); Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales (Section 53) of the Local Government Act 1972.)

  Welsh Committee for Postgraduate Pharmaceutical Education and Welsh Committee for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education
  (Recognised under Section 2(b) of the National Health Service Act 1977.)

  Welsh Medical Committee

  Welsh Dental Committee

  Welsh Nursing and Midwifery Committee
  235
  Welsh Optical Committee

  Welsh Pharmaceutical Committee and Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee
  (All recognised under the NHS Reorganisation Act 1973, Sections 5 and 6 Appropriation Act.)

  In addition, the Mental Handicap Advisory Panel has no statutory basis, however I have powers under section 2 of the National Health Services Act 1977 to provide such services as are appropriate to assist me in discharging my duties.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult before legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied to them.

  Mr. Redwood
  There is no statutory requirement to consult any of the advisory NDPBs prior to legislation proposals, however I may choose to do so.

  Unemployment, Alyn and Deeside
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many long-term unemployed people there are in the constituency of Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  In April 1994, the number of claimants who had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks in the Alyn and Deeside constituency was 920. This is less than half the number in April 1986.

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of the staff of his Department have been carried out in the last two years; and if he will place in the Library copies of the findings.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage in each county of people who find work after "training for work"; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is in relation to the seven training and enterprise council areas in Wales which do not coincide with the eight counties. The information is provided in the following table on those who have found work and remain in employment six months after completing training for work.

  Training for work job outcomes

  Percentage in a job

  Gwent

  43

  Mid Glamorgan

  44

  North East Wales

  29

  North West Wales

  32

  Powys

  43

  South Glamorgan

  38

  West Wales

  44

  Wales Total

  42

  England and Wales

  36

  236
  Source: TFW Follow-up September 1992 to August 1993.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people in each of the constituencies in Wales have taken up training credits; and what plans he has to extend the scheme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Figures on the take-up of training credits are not collected on a constituency basis. The table shows the numbers who have taken up the offer of a credit, by training and enterprise council area, for the period since the scheme was launched until 27 March 1994:

  Scheme started

  Number of starts

  North East Wales TEC

  1 April 1991

  3,972

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  29 March 1993

  2,445

  Two further training and enterprise councils, South Glamorgan and West Wales, will start offering credits in 1994–95, with North West Wales coming into operation in 1995–96 and Gwent and Powys in 1996–97.

  Land and Property
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the acquisition of land and property for road construction.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The general policy is that all land that is needed for trunk road construction is acquired under compulsory purchase. When a scheme is at the public consultation stage or a preferred route is protected for planning purposes landowners can ask that the Department acquire their property under statutory or discretionary powers. They would need to demonstrate that they were unable to sell their property at normal market value because of the impending road scheme. Each case is considered on its merits and decisions are taken on the basis of the level of impact that the road proposals will have.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the management of land and property acquired as a consequence of road construction plans.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Land and property which is acquired in advance of trunk road schemes is managed until it is needed for the works. It is maintained and let where appropriate. Residential property capable of being used for social purposes is offered for short tenancies of a fixed-term nature to housing associations and local housing authorities. Any land or property which is eventually surplus is sold on the open market.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning the disposal of surplus land and property.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department disposes of surplus land and property on the open market at the best price to the public purse, in line with Treasury guidance. Local housing authorities and housing associations are given the opportunity to bid on residential property.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated value of land and property
  237
  held by his Department as a consequence of actual and proposed road programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The estimated disposable value of land and property acquired in advance of proposed trunk road schemes which is or will eventually be surplus to requirements is £4£5 million. Land and property which is required for operational use is not revalued subsequent to acquisition.

  Consultation Documents (Bilingual Form)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 651, what considerations led him to issue "Implications of Local Government Reorganisation in Wales for Health Boundaries and Proposals for Restructuring Health Authorities" in the English language only; if he will make it his policy to issue all consultation documents in bilingual form; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Timing constraints made it impractical to issue a Welsh version. Each case is considered on its merits but whenever possible consultation documents will be made available in English and Welsh.

  Access to Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many requests his Department has received for information under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992; how many were responded to within two months; how many were refused; and on what grounds in each case.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office does not keep records of the number of requests received under the 1992 environmental information regulations; only refusals are specifically logged. Internal procedures, however, seek to ensure that all correspondence is responded to reasonably promptly, and normally well within the two months specified in the regulations.

  Up to 30 June 1994, the Welsh Office refused one request for information under the regulations, on the ground that it was commercially confidential.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has given to the members of the board of the Development Board for Rural Wales concerning the chairmanship of its meetings.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer Monday 4 July 1994]: None. The DBRW board decided that its meetings should be chaired by the senior board member present.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the board of the Development Board for Rural Wales with respect to the reporting instructions and the chain of command pending the appointment of a replacement chairman.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer Monday 4 July 1994]: The normal consultative arrangements between the Department and the DBRW continue to operate. As
  238
  regards the conduct of its own business, meetings of the DBRW board are chaired by the senior board member present.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Select Committees
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to place in the Library the revised memorandum of guidance for officials appearing before Select Committees.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A copy of the revised memorandum of guidance will be placed in the Library shortly at the same time as it is circulated to Government Departments.

  Occupational Health Service
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what key performance targets he has set for the Occupational Health Service executive agency for the current year.

  Mr. David Davis
  The key performance targets for the Occupational Health Service executive agency for 1994–95 are:

  to break even in accrual accounting terms;

  to turn round 15 days, 80 per cent. of case referrals where no additional information is required and 58 per cent. within 40 days when additional information is required;

  to earn customer post-service satisfaction evaluations of 90 per cent. in the two highest categories;

  to issue at least 90 per cent. of invoices error free.

  In addition the Occupational Health Service has cost containment targets the details of which are commercially sensitive.

  Contracting Out
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list those central Government information technology outsourcing contracts that have been awarded to private companies since April 1992 and their value, where that company winning the tender has not undertaken previous work for central Government;

  (2) if he will list those central Government information technology contracts that have been awarded to private companies as a result of market testing since April 1992, together with their values, the names of the companies to which they were awarded and the names of the companies or organisations that previously provided these services.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the period from April 1992-December 1993, Departments have reported to the efficiency unit that IT support functions worth £291 million were examined under the competing for quality programme.

  From Department's reports to the efficiency unit, and contract awards reported in the market testing bulletin in 1994, work in the following areas has been awarded to external contractors.

  Department

  Ministry of Defence:

  Operations West IT processing.

  Department of the Environment:

  Planning Inspectorate IT Project management.

  239

  Department

  Export Credits Guarantee Department:

  IT operational support.

  Department of Health:

  Operation and redevelopment of the Hospital Episodes Statistics System (HES).

  Inland Revenue:

  IT Services

  Department of National Heritage:

  IT provision.

  Northern Ireland Civil Service:

  Data Preparation.

  Operations of Mainframe computer services.

  Computer network management.

  Ordnance Survey:

  Digital Conversion of 1/10,000 mapping.

  Hardware maintenance.

  Mainframe services.

  Office of Public Service and Science: Recruitment Assessment Services

  Computer hardware maintenance.

  Office automation software support.

  Department of Trade and Industry:

  Database Maintenance.

  Some information on companies winning tenders is in the market testing bulletin, which is in the Library.

  For other details of contract values, the companies winning tenders and the organisations previously carrying out the work, I refer the hon. Member to individual Departments.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration has been given to maintaining statistics of the number of live animals exported from the United Kingdom and then returned to Britain for sale; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The maintenance of a wide range of statistics has been considered, but the data in question are not collected.

  Rabbits
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her estimate of changes in the rabbit population in the last 10 years, both nationally and regionally; what action she intends to take or has recommended; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Detailed regional surveys of rabbit populations between 1980 asnd 1986 showed a steady increase in the distribution and abundance of rabbits, particularly in eastern and south-eastern England. Nationally, numbers are now estimated to be about 30 per cent. of pre-myxomatosis levels, that is at about 30 million, and are rising at a rate of 2 per cent. per year. In some areas the populations are back to pre-myxomatosis levels.

  Section 1 of the Pests Act 1954 places a continuing obligation on occupiers of land designated as rabbit clearance areas to control rabbits harboured on their land.
  240
  The current Rabbit Clearance Order, issued in 1972, covers the whole of England and Wales excluding the City of London, the Isles of Scilly and Skokholm island.

  Where occupiers are failing to meet their obligations under the 1954 Act, Agriculture Ministers have the power, under section 98 of the Agriculture Act 1947, to require action to be taken. These discretionary powers will be invoked where the situation has not been resolved satisfactorily within a reasonable period of time.

  The Ministry is aware of the damage that rabbits can cause and keeps its policy on rabbit control under continual review. The Ministry is funding R and D to establish improved methods for cost-effective and humane rabbit control.

  Comfrey
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is held by her Department concerning the findings of recent surveys on the safety of comfrey and comfrey products; and whether the findings of those surveys support or contradict the retention of a ban on comfrey products.

  Mr. Soames
  I have received from the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy a paper entitled "The safety-in-use of comfrey and comfrey products: Research survey". I shall take this opportunity to review the situation. I assure my hon. Friend that whatever further action I take to protect public health will be based on the best scientific advice available.

  Access to Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many requests her Department has received for information under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992; how many were answered within two months; how many were refused; and on what grounds in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department does not keep records of the number of requests received under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, nor when they were answered. The Department does, however, keep records of refusals to supply information and the grounds for doing so. In the period up to 30 June 1994, the Department refused one request for information on the ground that it was commercially confidential to the informant.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funding her Department has offered to the Public Health Laboratory Service for research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt Jakob disease; and which member of the staff is to carry out the research.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the result of the work of the Public Health Laboratory Service about a possible test for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in animals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Joint work between this Ministry's central veterinary laboratory and Dr. Narang at the
  241
  Newcastle public health laboratory in which specimens were examined blind by him using an electron microscope technique he had developed, and by the CVL using conventional established techniques, did not indicate that Dr. Narang's technique was any improvement.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports she has received concerning Dr. Harash Narang's work on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies; and if she will place these reports in the Library.

  Mr. Soames
  MAFF is co-funding research with the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council designed to repeat independently the procedures used by Dr. Narang and to assess his reported observations. These studies are being undertaken with the co-operation and involvement of Dr. Narang.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by Government-funded institutions towards a test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy and other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in animals and humans.

  Mr. Soames
  Government-funded research aimed at developing a diagnostic test for BSE in live cattle is in progress. The results of this research will be published when the work has been completed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Quality
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which high-profile sites in need of water quality improvements in addition to EU directive requirements will be included in the Director General of Water Services' review of price limits for water companies;

  (2) what provision is being made for protecting river sites of special scientific interest from deterioration due to sewage effluent during the 1995–2000 investment programme for Water Services plc.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have informed the Director General of Water Services that, in addition to spending required to meet existing obligations including those imposed by European Community directives, we consider that in the period 1995 to 2000 a further £522·3 million of spending specifically to improve the quality of rivers should be enabled to proceed, including in Wales. He has told me that he will take this spending into account in determining the new price limits which he is to announce on 28 July. The distribution of the additional spending between sewerage company areas is as in the table. It represents guidance on the extent to which the National Rivers Authority will, in the period 1995 to 2000, require additional expenditure by water and sewerage plcs by tightening sewage works discharge consents so as to bring about further improvements in river quality, over and above improvements which will result from the existing obligations arising from European Community and domestic legislation. It will be for the NRA in consultation with the companies to determine the most cost-effective use of this expenditure. I expect, however, that it will include, inter alia, priority schemes to continue the improvement of water quality in the Mersey basin, the Aire and Calder 242
  catchment, the Norfolk Broads, and the Worcestershire Stour; and schemes to improve other rivers such as the Tame to the north-east of Birmingham, the Surrey Blackwater, the lower Nene, and the Hampshire Avon.

  Company

  £million

  Thames

  41

  Wessex

  18

  South West

  —

  Anglian

  42

  Southern

  10

  North West

  130

  Northumbrian

  —

  Yorkshire

  60

  Severn Trent

  194

  Welsh

  27·3

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of the staff of his Department have been carried out in the last two years; and if he will place copies of the findings in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  No such surveys have been conducted across my Department. Small-scale surveys have been conducted in two operational units comprising in total about 500 staff, the results of which are confidential to management and the staff concerned.

  "Using Water Wisely"
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he gave to the usage of valve flushes in his consultations in respect of his paper "Using Water Wisely".

  Mr. Atkins
  The consultation paper suggested that new research is necessary. Tenders have recently been invited for a research project on water economy which includes an evaluation of various flushing devices including flushing valves.

  Bridleways
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make a statement about progress on the Pennine bridleway.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Countryside Commission submitted to the Secretary of State its supplementary report outlining revised proposals for the bridleway on 1 July last year. Following further necessary consultation, I am presently considering the matter and I expect to anounce my decision shortly.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to ensure that droveways fall within the right of way in common law known as bridleways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am not convinced that legislation is either necessary or appropriate. At common law, not every droveway is also a bridleway, and not every bridleway is also subject to the right to drive beasts. Where there is a public right of way for vehicles, bridleway and droveway rights would normally be included. However where, for
  243
  example, old maps show a route as a "droveway", or "driftway", it is not to be assumed from that alone that a public right of way for vehicles also exists. In all cases where the correct classification of a public right of way is in issue, all available and relevant evidence must be considered to establish the exact nature of the rights the public have acquired.

  Bathing Water
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been commissioned by his Department on the possible link between dirty beaches, seawater and children's health.

  Mr. Atkins
  The four-year study into the health effects of sea bathing, commissioned by the Department and others, and published in January this year included children's health. In the main part of the investigation, 52 per cent. of swimmers and 31 per cent. of paddlers studied in the beach surveys were children of 5 to 14 years.

  Access to Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests for information his Department has received under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992; how many were answered within two months; how many were refused; and on what grounds in each case.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department does not keep central records of the number of individual requests it receives for information. We do, however, look very carefully at every case of refusal.

  In the period up to 30 June 1994, the Department refused 13 requests. One refusal arose from the Department's inability to respond within the two-month time limit. The remaining refusals related to the following grounds—some refusals covered more than one ground: commercial confidentiality (3), international relations (1), national security (1), legal or other proceedings (4), requested information not held (1), request considered manifestly unreasonable (1), incomplete documents (2), confidential deliberations (2) and internal communications (2).

  Pollution (Structural Damage)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies his Department has undertaken in the last three years to assess the damage to buildings by vehicle exhaust fumes.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department is currently reviewing and assessing what future research on the effects of air pollution on materials is required. Following the recommendations of a consultancy undertaken by the University of East Anglia for the Department, a workshop is being held later this month in London with leading United Kingdom researchers in the field. It is envisaged that priority areas for future research on materials will be identified in this workshop.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to undertake further studies to assess the damage to buildings by vehicle exhaust fumes.
  244
  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has funded research at the Building Research Establishment, Middlesex university, Queens university Belfast and University of Manchester institute of science and technology. Such research has, for example, examined the soiling of materials and the erosion effects from NOx, nitrates and SO2 on materials. A consultancy was also undertaken by the University of East Anglia which reviewed current United Kingdom research into the effects of air pollution on materials.

  Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes were made to the external finance limits for the urban development corporations in 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  Changes were announced in my answers of 8 June 1993,Official Report, column 196 and 1 November 1993, Official Report, column 5. In addition amendments were made during 1993–94 to the external finance limits for the Plymouth, Black Country and Birmingham Heartlands development corporations.

  These comprised a £1,000,000 reduction for Plymouth development corporation arising from unavoidable project delays and corresponding increases of £400,000 for a relocation project at Birmingham Heartlands development corporation and £600,000 towards the Moxley-Lunt link road project at Black Country development corporation.

  Overall there has been no change in the funding of the urban development corporation programme.

  Conservation
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the draft Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations would amend planning legislation.

  Mr. Curry
  The planning aspects of the draft-regulations which were laid before Parliament on 4 July 1994 implement the assessment and decision-making requirements of the habitats directive in respect of the land use planning system in England and Wales and in Scotland.

  The main amendments made to planning legislation by the regulations are to:

  (a) restrict the granting of planning permission for development which is likely significantly to affect a Special Protection Area (SPA) designated under the Birds Directive or a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) to be classified under the Habitats Directive;

  (b) require the review of existing planning permissions which have not been fully implemented and which are likely significantly to affect a designated SPA or an SAC when it is classified, and if necessary the taking of appropriate action;

  (c) prevent the General Development Order (and the General Permitted Development Order in Scotland) granting permitted development rights which will adversely affect the integrity of an SPA or SAC;

  (d) prevent other existing and future development orders, simplified planning zone schemes and enterprise zone schemes from granting permission for development which is likely significantly to affect an SPA or SAC.

  The regulations are not a new departure for planning so much as a reinforcement of our existing approach. We have a firm and well-established framework for safeguarding the natural heritage, which has been strengthened significantly in recent years. This framework enables us to protect nationally and internationally important sites in terms that

  245
  are broadly consistent with the habitats directive. The regulations will ensure that we comply fully with its requirements.

  We will provide advice on the regulations in the planning policy guidance note on nature conservation for local planning authorities in England. The PPG will be published after Parliament has approved the regulations. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales will be providing separate advice for local planning authorities in Scotland and in Wales.

  Under the provision referred to at (b), it is possible that a local authority might exceptionally need to make an order to modify or revoke a planning permission or discontinue a use of land. We expect any such orders to be rare, because of the protection already afforded to important nature conservation sites, and because an order would be needed only if a development would adversely affect the integrity of the site and a satisfactory planning obligation could not be reached. An order would take effect when served, but would be subject to confirmation by the appropriate Secretary of State. The existing entitlement under planning law to compensation in connection with modification, revocation and discontinuance orders would apply, as would the liability on the local authority to pay it. The Government would, however, consider reimbursing a local authority if the compensation costs were high and the action taken was no more than was necessary to overcome the adverse effects of the planning permission. It would not meet the costs of an authority which unreasonably served an order which was not subsequently confirmed by the Secretary of State.

  We are grateful to those who responded to the consultation paper on amending the General Development Order—see (c)—which we issued last year for England and Wales. Copies of their responses have been placed in the Department of the Environment library, and a summary and list of them have been deposited in the Libraries of the House of Commons and House of Lords. The amendments in the draft regulations would mean that permitted development rights would not be available for any development which was likely significantly to affect an SPA or SAC, unless the local authority had decided that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the site. A developer who was uncertain about whether a proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on an SPA or SAC would be able to obtain an opinion from English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales. The consultation paper also covered our proposal to remove permitted development rights for development requiring environmental assessment under the 1988 EA regulations; we will be announcing our decision on this separately.

  As well as amending planning legislation, the draft regulations amend highways legislation to achieve similar results to (a) and (b) above for road construction or improvement projects proposed by the Secretary of State. They also amend the Pipe-lines Act 1962, the Electricity Act 1989 and the Transport and Works Act 1992 to make similar provisions in relation to the construction of generating stations and the installation of electric lines above ground; the construction and diversion of pipelines; and the construction of transport systems, inland waterways and works interfering with rights of navigation.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further announcement about the implementation of the Local Government Commission's recommendations for the establishment of four unitary authorities in Cleveland following the High Court judgment on 28 June.

  Mr. Curry
  The High Court judgment has now been given on the legal challenges by Avon, Somerset and Cleveland county councils against the Local Government Commission and the Government in respect of the Commission's recommendations for new local government structures in Avon, Somerset and Cleveland. I hope all authorities will study it closely before embarking on any further litigation.

  The delay caused by this case has led me to reconsider the timing of the establishment of unitary authorities in Cleveland. In an answer on 11 May, column 170, I said that our intention to transfer county functions to unitary districts in Cleveland on 1 April 1995 was subject to the outcome of the judicial review case. At that stage we did not know when the judgment was likely to be made. I am mindful of the need to ensure a smooth transition, with an adequate time for the planning of change. It is of paramount importance that there should be no risk to the delivery of essential services in the areas concerned. In view of the relatively short time that would be available between the making of an order and a start date for unitary authorities of 1 April 1995, I have decided that it would be in the best interests of the inhabitants of Cleveland to establish the four unitary authorities as from 1 April 1996, with elections to be held in May 1995, for councillors who will plan for change and then become councillors of the unitary authorities once they are established. I will very shortly send the local authorities in Cleveland a draft order, incorporating these revised dates, for comment.

SCOTLAND

  Disabled People
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the future financing of blind and disabled workshops.

  Mr. Stewart: As indicated when I met the hon. Gentleman and delegates from Blindcraft, the National League for the Blind and Disabled and Strathclyde social work department recently, the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill includes provision for the transfer of property, assets, liabilities and obligations to the relevant successor authority. We propose that any obligations which a local authority has in respect of workshops for blind and disabled people will be transferred to the appropriate new authority from 1 April 1996.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of ENABLE to discuss issues affecting disabled people; when he next plans to meet them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: Scottish Office officials met representatives of ENABLE to discuss a range of issues in September 1993. My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State expects to meet an all-party group on disability and disablement in the next few weeks.

  Regional Councils
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the present regional council administrations in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  New regional councils were elected in Scotland in May to serve for two years until the two-tier system of local government is replaced in 1996 by a single tier of all-purpose authorities.

  Forestry
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make public the findings of the review group appointed in March 1993 and established to look at the ownership and management of woodlands; and if he will make a statement on the development of forestry policy.

  Sir Hector Monro
  An announcement about our conclusions on the forestry review group proposals will be made shortly.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount of tree clearance currently taking place in the United Kingdom; and what is the annual rate of replanting.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Commission fells and replants about 8,000 hectares of woodland each year. Last year the Commission gave approval for 13,000 hectares of privately-owned woodland to be felled over the next five years. Practically all the woodlands which are felled will be replanted.

  Investment
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had this year with the Scottish Trades Union Congress relating to the level of investment in the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has arranged to meet the STUC general council on 22 July. It is expected that the level of investment in the Scottish economy will be discussed at that meeting.

  Employment
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss employment and the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Stewart
  At the meeting on 22 July to which I referred earlier, employment and other matters related to the Scottish economy will be discussed by my right hon. Friend and the STUC.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for 20 mph zones have been received by his Department; and how many have been granted approval.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office industry department has received six applications from local roads authorities requesting my right hon. Friend's consent to allow them to make 20 mph speed limit orders. My right hon. Friend has authorised four of them to date.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of the Scottish ambulance service.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Scottish ambulance service has applied to become an NHS trust in order to improve further the services that it provides to patients. Its application is at present subject to public consultation which will be completed by 18 August. A decision on the application will be taken thereafter by my right hon. Friend on whether to approve NHS trust status in light of all the comments received in response to the consultation process.

  Drug Education
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to monitor drug education in schools.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Her Majesty's inspectors of schools include drugs education within their normal programmes of school inspection. They also hold regular discussions with education authorities about health education, including drugs education, policies. Responsibility for the content of the school curriculum rests with education authorities and individual head teachers.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received concerning the reform of local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend continues to receive a range of representations about the Government's proposals for local government reform in Scotland. Since January, I have met 27 hon. Members who accompanied delegations.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss changes in Scottish local government.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 28 January 1994. The convention did not raise any issues relating to local government reform at that meeting.

  Education (Funding)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has had about the funding of education in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I receive comments from time to time about the funding of education in Scotland from a number of sources. I am satisfied that Scottish education is appropriately funded.

  Local Services
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the provision of local services.
  249
  Mr. Stewart
  As I told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) on 25 May,Official Report, column 205, my right hon. Friend and I will be meeting COSLA representatives on 22 July as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.

  Housing
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland since May 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at end December 1993, over 284,000 houses had been sold to sitting tenants of local authorities and other public sector landlords in Scotland.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what priority he gives to clearing up contaminated land when considering financial allocations to Scottish Enterprise and Glasgow development agency.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear, in his strategic and policy guidance to Scottish Enterprise, that its main priority in environmental matters is the eradication of environmental dereliction; and that there remains the need to tackle systematically and rationally the problems of dereliction and contamination. He expects that schemes which combine environmental improvements with economic gains should generally merit priority; and that schemes which remove health or other hazards should be given priority over comparable projects with no such impact.

  My right hon. Friend takes these factors into account, along with others, in making resources available to Scottish Enterprise each year. Day-to-day decisions on the relative priority and resources to be afforded to particular schemes or projects are, however, a matter for Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies, in the light of my right hon. Friend's strategic guidance.

  The allocation of resources to Glasgow development agency is a matter for Scottish Enterprise.

  Training
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to discuss training.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman of Scottish Enterprise on 20 June 1994, when a range of issues, including training, was discussed.

  A7
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about upgrading the A7 trunk road.

  Mr. Lang
  Following the routes south of Edinburgh consultation in 1989–90, work on the A7 in Scotland is being taken forward in three sections. From the border to Hawick, a route action plan has been published and two significant road improvement schemes are currently being constructed to provide safe overtaking stretches on the section. From Hawick to Galashiels a report has been prepared by consultants to examine the opportunity to 250
  improve safe overtaking provision. North of Galashiels, following views expressed by environmental bodies during the routes south of Edinburgh consultation, consultants have examined whether a new road could be constructed without unacceptable environmental consequences. The consultants work on these latter two sections is now being assessed by my officials.

  Grampian Enterprise
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Grampian Enterprise to discuss its role in the local economy.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman of Grampian Enterprise at a Scottish Enterprise conference on 25 March 1994.

  Defence Spending (Employment Implications)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has had any representations on the effect of defence spending on Scottish employment.

  Mr. Stewart
  Since the announcement of the "Front Line First" study on 1 December 1993 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I have received 145 representations about military establishments in Scotland.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends introducing Scottish legislation to make safety seat belts compulsory on school buses; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for vehicle safety matters throughout the United Kingdom rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. His Department has recently completed a review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all minibuses and coaches, and related safety matters. Decisions on the outcome of that review will be announced shortly.

  Local Government (Alleged Corruption)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about corruption in local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend receives, from time-to-time, representations about alleged corrupt practices by Scottish local authorities. All such representations are carefully considered in the context of the statutory powers available to my right hon. Friend, and complainants are informed of forms of redress available—for example, the courts, the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland, and the local government ombudsman.

  Day-care Facilities, North Tayside
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals his Department has received from Tayside health board in respect of day care facilities in north Tayside.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is for Tayside health board and Tayside regional council to determine the level of day-care
  251
  facilities required in north Tayside. I understand that the board is considering using Meigle hospital as a base for enhanced community health services which will include:

  Extended District Nursing and Health Visiting.

  New developments in Specialist Dementia Care and Palliative Care Nurses.

  New Direct Access (by GP referral) to Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Increased Dietetic and Foot Care Services.

  Possible development of community day services.

  It is for Tayside regional council to consider the level and location of social work day-care services.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the trend in unemployment in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  Unemployment is on a downward trend. Since December 1992, the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen by 17,100 to stand at 232,500 and 9.3 per cent. of the work force in May 1994.

  Local Councillors (Payments)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to address the level of payments to local authority councillors.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 22 June 1994,Official Report, column 239.

  Higher Education (Access)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made of the system of Scottish highers as a means of gaining entry to higher education in relation to systems in other EU countries.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him on 23 February 1994,Official Report, column 292. The report to which I referred then has now been published.

  Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests for environmental information under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992 have been received by his Department; how many were answered within two months; how many were refused; and on what grounds in each case.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office does not keep records of the number of requests received under the environmental information regulations, nor when they were answered. However, we do keep records of any refusals to supply information and of the grounds on which they have been made.

  In the period up to 30 June 1994, there have been no refusals. However, we have had one case where information was given in a manner which did not divulge specific information for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  EC Funds
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an estimate, on the basis of the criteria operated by the EC, on whether Scotland would be 252
  a net contributor or a net recipient of funds in the event of an independent Scotland being a member of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: Estimating whether an independent Scotland would be a net contributor to, or a net recipient from, the EC budget would be a complex exercise which could not be undertaken except at disproportionate cost. In view of the hypothetical nature of the question, such costs would not be justified. In the unlikely event of Scottish independence, Scotland's net position would depend on its terms of membership of the European Union.

  Prisoners (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Northern Ireland prisoners have received transfers from Scotland to Northern Ireland since 1 January 1993; and how many were(a) permanent, (b) temporary, (c) male, (d) female, (e) loyalists and (f) republican transfers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 6 July 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about the number of Northern Ireland prisoners who have received transfers from Scotland to Northern Ireland since 1 January 1993; and how many were (a) permanent, (b) temporary, (c) male, (d) female, (e) loyalists and (f) republican transfers.
  Since 1 January 1993 a total of 5 male prisoners have received transfers from Scotland to Northern Ireland. Of those who were transferred 3 were permanently transferred and 2 were transferred on a temporary basis. No female prisoners have been transferred since 1 January 1993 to date.
  I am unable to inform you whether the prisoners transferred were loyalist or republican as prisoners in Scotland are not classified by reference to the political or other motivation of their offences.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the greatest, the shortest and the average length of time between application by prisoners for temporary or permanent transfer from Scotland to Northern Ireland and notification of the decision to accept or reject the application.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 6 July 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question as to what was the greatest, the shortest and the average length of time between application by prisoners for temporary or permanent transfer from Scotland to Northern Ireland and notification of the decision to accept or reject the application.
  Transfers of prisoners between Scotland and Northern Ireland have been effected since the introduction of the Criminal Justice

  253
  Act 1961. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide you with the information you require as the information could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for how long a prisoner whose application for transfer from Scotland to Northern Ireland is refused must wait before reapplying.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzel. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzel to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 6 July 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question as to the length of time a prisoner whose application for transfer from Scotland to Northern Ireland is refused must wait before reapplying.
  There is no stipulated time which must lapse before a prisoner can reapply for transfer. Each application is considered on its own merits against the set criteria governing United Kingdom interjurisdiction transfers which was announced to Parliament on 23 November 1992.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  31 Killinakin Road, Killinchy
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if 31 Killinakin road, Killinchy, County Down is currently classified as a dwelling house; if it is currently occupied; if he has issued any enforcement order to lease the use of this building as a dwelling; and if he will make a statement about the future uses of this building.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The property is not classified as a dwelling house and when inspected on 30 June 1994 was unoccupied. No enforcement notice has been issued regarding the use of this building. If the building is used for residential purposes the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, as planning authority, would have to consider whether it would be expedient to initiate enforcement action requiring a discontinuance of that use.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what facilities his Department provides for the parking of the bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are 40 spaces in the bicycle shed which visitors may use.

  Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many requests for environmental information under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992 have been received by his Department; how many were answered within two months; how many were refused; and on what grounds in each case.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Environmental Information Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 came into effect on 31 March 1993. Between April and December 1993 a total of 254
  1,221 requests were received by central Government Departments. All were replied to within two months. Six were refused, five on the ground that the information was unavailable and one because it was not defined as within the regulations. Figures for the first half of 1994 are not yet available.

TRANSPORT

  Nationality Agreements
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the relationship of European Community regulations or directives to the action proposed by Her Majesty's Government to abolish the current nationality agreements for senior officers on vessels registered in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  EC directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC govern the mutual recognition of certain regulated qualifications within the EC. Both permit the competent authority of a member state to satisfy itself that there is an equivalence of standards between its own qualifications and those awarded by the competent authorities of member states. Where there is a substantial difference, a competent authority is entitled to ask the applicant to make up that difference in a number of ways, including an aptitude test or an adaption period.

  The proposed EC directive on the minimum level of training for seafarers will ensure that all member states comply with the international convention on standards of training certification and watchkeeping—STCW—and provides that mutual recognition of certificates held by nationals of member states will be subject to the provisions of directives 89/48 and 92/51.

  The proposal to relax the current nationality restrictions on senior merchant navy officers, announced on 15 December last by my right hon. Friend will take full account of these developments.

  Nudge Bars
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to amend the use and construction regulations for motor vehicles to deal with the construction and safety of nudge bars.

  Mr. Key
  We have taken steps to identify accidents where a pedestrian has been struck by a vehicle fitted with a bull bar with a view to determining whether bull bars are causing increased injuries. We do not expect to see results from this exercise before the end of 1994. It would not be sensible to legislate before considering those results.

  Driving Test Centres (Closures)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that there are no closures of driving test centres in the current and the next financial year beyond the 22 announced already.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. John Ford. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  255
  Letter from John Ford to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 4 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about test centre closures in the current and next financial year.
  As I explained in my reply of 20 June to PQ 2552/93/94 there are no driving test centres, in addition to the 22 announced recently, that are currently being considered for closure. The Agency will, however, continue to keep its estate under review and I am unable to give any assurance that no further closures will be considered during the period you refer to.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what facilities his Department provides for the parking of bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.

  Mr. Norris
  Visitors may use cycle racks in 2 Marsham street and Romney house.

  Marine Transport Policy
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications of the European habitat and species directive on marine transport policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The implications of the directive of the United Kingdom including those for marine transport policy, have been taken into account in the framing of draft regulations which have been laid before the House by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Wales and for Scotland.

  Railway Lines (Vandalism)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway employees have(a) died, (b) suffered injury or (c) been placed on sick leave as a result of having experienced acts of vandalism or other such criminal activities on railway lines in each of the past 15 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available statistics show that, from 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1994 no railway employee died as a result of vandals obstructing the line or throwing objects at trains but the following injuries have been suffered as a consequence of these causes:

  1990 1 serious and 6 minor injuries

  1991 none serious but 2 minor injuries

  Name

  Previous or current occupation

  Expiry of appointment

  Salary £

  Chairman

  R. B. Horton

  BR vice chairman

  31 March 1997

  1121,800

  Chief Executive

  J. C. P. Edmonds, CBE

  BR employee/former member of BR Board

  31 March 1997

  131,950

  Finance Director

  N. N. Broadhurst

  Finance Director VSEL plc

  Rolling contract with 2 year minimum

  150,000

  Commercial Director

  D. C. Moss

  Seconded from DOT to BR staff

  31 March 1999

  100,000

  Director, Safety and Standards

  D. E. Rayner, CBE

  BR Board member

  31 March 1997

  90,000

  256

  1992 1 serious and 8 minor injuries

  1993 2 serious and 18 minor injuries

  1994 none serious but 4 minor injuries (to 31 March)

  The other information requested is not available.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway passengers have(a) died or (b) suffered injury as a result of acts of vandalism or other such criminal activities on railway lines in each of the past 15 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available statistics show that, from 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1994 no railway passenger died as a result of vandals obstructing the line or throwing objects at trains, but the following injuries have been suffered as a consequence of such behaviour:

  1990 2 minor injuries

  1991 Nil

  1992 1 minor injury

  1993 Nil

  1994 Nil (to 31 March)

  Information for earlier years is not available.

  British Airways
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from the chief executive of Manchester airport in regard to the decision made by British Airways to terminate its Los Angeles route from Manchester; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has received a letter from the chief executive of Manchester airport concerning British Airway's decision to withdraw from the Manchester to Los Angeles route and will be replying to him shortly.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all board members of Railtrack, together with their previous occupations and current lengths of contract and remuneration, including all bonuses, fringe benefits, allowances and additional payments over and above basic salary.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: Information available on these appointments, which date from 1 April 1994—other than Mr. Broadhurst's which dates from 1 July 1994—is as follows:
  257

  Name

  Previous or current occupation

  Expiry of appointment

  Salary £

  Non-executive members

  Mrs. B. Anderson

  Former Chief Executive, Book Trust

  31 March 1997

  210,000

  Sir Christopher D. Foster

  Partner, Coopers and Lybrand

  31 March 1997

  210,000

  C. W. Jonas, CBE

  Senior Partner, Drivers Jonas

  31 March 1997

  210,000

  A. J. Norman

  Chief Executive, ASDA Group

  31 March 1997

  210,000

  Miss J. A. Page, CBE

  Chief Executive, English Heritage

  31 March 1997

  210,000

  Dr. D. H. Roberts, CBE

  Provost of University College London

  31 March 1997

  210,000

  1Three days per week.

  2Plus £500 for each Board committee meeting attended.

  A bonus scheme for executive members is in preparation. The award of any fringe benefits or allowances is a matter for Railtrack.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) of 3 May,Official Report, column 446, and to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras of 26 May, Official Report, column 284, if he will show for each separate invoice supplied to his Department by Dewe Rogerson for advice on his Department's marketing strategy for rail privatisation, (a) the date on which the invoice was received by his Department, (b) the date on which the invoice was paid by
  258
  his Department and (c) the amount contained in each separate invoice, inclusive of value added tax; whether he has now received the final invoice from Dewe Rogerson; what is the total amount inclusive of the value added tax, which his Department will have paid to Dewe Rogerson by the time its contract expires; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply 5 July 1994]The information requested in parts(a), (b) and (c) is commercially confidential.

  Dewe Rogerson's final invoice has not yet been received and it is not therefore possible to provide a figure for the total amount.

  To date Dewe Rogerson has been paid £658,000, including VAT, for this advice.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.
The Marquess of Normanby The Marquess of Normanby —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Rail Dispute: Negotiations
Lord Haskel: My Lords, with the leave of the House and with the permission of my noble friend Lord Desai, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intervened in the recent rail dispute.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, negotiations about the pay of signalling staff are a matter for Railtrack. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport made clear to Railtrack the importance which the Government attach to controlling public expenditure and restraining pay bill costs.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response. But is he aware that everybody in the House would like to know what the Government are doing to get the railways back to work?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the negotiations are a matter for Railtrack and the sole responsibility of Railtrack. It is therefore up to Railtrack and the RMT—particularly the RMT—to get the negotiations back under way.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, would not a straight Answer to the first Question have been, "Yes, sir"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, sir.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not the Minister find the answer he has just given a little inconsistent when Railtrack conceded that the 5.7 per cent. increase in pay, which took account of past productivity, was not pursued because of the Government's intervention? How does that square with the Minister's bland innocence that the Government had nothing to do with the negotiations?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, clearly at the beginning of the issue Railtrack looked at a number of options and decided that the option it wished to pursue with the RMT was the package put before the RMT. In addition, the chairman of Railtrack stated publicly that the Government's approach to pay is entirely consistent with his commercial approach to pay in Railtrack.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is right for the Government Co occasionally remind any industry, whether or not in the public sector, that pay restraint is essential if we are to continue with our economic prosperity? Is it not regrettable that Members of the Opposition, not only in this House but also in another place, have not as yet condemned a strike which is unnecessary.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in response to the latter part of my noble friend's question, the messages coming from the party opposite are a little confused on the matter. Some of those seeking leadership are a little coy about whether or not they like strikes; whether they like this one in particular and approve of it; while others are more forthcoming and say that they approve of them. That reminds me of days I thought were long gone by.
With regard to the first part of my noble friend's question, it is right that the Government should make clear to all government-owned bodies funded by public money that they are expected to stay within the broad approach to public sector pay set out last autumn by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would have been better if the Government had made that position clear before the negotiations started rather than, apparently, in the middle?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that last autumn was in the: middle of negotiations. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it perfectly clear last autumn that the approach to public sector pay he wished to see was that any increase in pay should be offset by improvements in productivity; it should be value for money, and there should be no growth in overall pay bills. It cannot be made much clearer than that.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a great deal of history which demonstrates that Ministers' intervention in pay negotiations is seldom successful and almost always extremely expensive for the taxpayer? Does he further agree that the way the negotiations have been conducted from the beginning on the employers' side—though the employers have not been particularly involved—started with negotiations with British Rail? Railtrack then insisted, understandably, that it should take up the negotiations and they started all over again. The Minister then intervened and started us back to square one for the third time. It is naive for the Minister to say that governments are not intervening. Either they should openly conduct the negotiations themselves or, alternatively, they should do what has happened in the past and allow the employer to negotiate with the employees within the budgets approved by the Government.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government are allowing, and indeed encouraging, Railtrack to negotiate a deal with the RMT within the

1271
broad approach to public sector pay which, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was outlined by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Horton indicated that it is entirely consistent with the commercial approach that he is taking at Railtrack. RMT's demand at the beginning was for 11 per cent. without any productivity gains or strings attached. That would have been expensive for the taxpayer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware—as I am sure the whole country is— that the Government intervened at a point when a 5.7 per cent. increase had already been offered to RMT? It had not been agreed but it was at least offered. Is it not true that the Government were completely horrified by the offer and did everything they could to destabilise it? That is in fact what happened. Would not the noble Lord's strictures regarding the necessity for pay restraint in the public sector be rather more appropriate if the Government themselves had not actively connived in colossal pay increases in the public sector quangos largely populated by their own party members?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as regards the latter part of the noble Lord's question, one of the problems of manning in the best possible way those parts of our industry which are still in the public sector is that we have tended in the past not to be prepared to pay the market rate and therefore we did not get the people best suited to run those industries. That has proved very costly for our country. As to the first part of his question, the board of Railtrack looked at a number of options at the start of the negotiations but, as I made perfectly clear at the beginning of my answers today, it decided to go ahead with a package of offers to RMT. The package has three component parts and in the present climate, with the low rate of inflation and looking to the future of the industry, is a very reasonable offer to the signalmen.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the present stance and utterances of the union leadership are hardly conducive to the achievement of a solution and to the removal of the misery of the travelling public?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. If we are to get an efficient and effective railway system on which the customer enjoys travelling the one thing we must do is to put into the past the kind of strikes that we are seeing at the moment on the railway system. All that strikes can do is demonstrate to many of the travelling public that there are alternative ways for them to travel and, once the dispute is over, the railway may find that it has lost some customers forever.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, with his experience of the industry, and ask the Minister two straight questions. Does he deny that a figure of 5.7 per cent. was part of the negotiations and was being put forward by Railtrack? Secondly, does he not accept that
1272
the Government did their very best to ensure that that offer of 5.7 per cent. was withdrawn? Those are two straight questions. I hope that we can have straight answers.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, Mr. Horton himself made clear yesterday to the Select Committee in the other place that the board had considered a number of options prior to getting into detailed negotiations. However, as I said a moment ago, it decided to go for a package, the first element of which was a 6 per cent. increase to be self-financing from improved working practices. But it was a package with two other parts to it. The board thought that it was important to go for the whole package and not just part of it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my second question? Did not the Government do their best to persuade Railtrack to withdraw the offer of 5.7 per cent?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the House will know, the Railtrack chairman himself has consistently emphasised that his board never authorised any such offer.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his assurance that the Government did not intervene in the dispute will be of little comfort to the millions who struggled to work this morning for the fourth time in as many weeks? Is there not a case for some kind of government intervention to try to get this dispute settled once and for all? Failure to do so will have an enormous detrimental effect on the economy of this country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness tempts me down a road which—dare I say?—Ministers and governments have been tempted down before and against which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, warned us earlier on. When governments intervene directly in pay talks and negotiate pay talks in order to get a settlement at almost any price, the cost to the economy and to the industry concerned is usually far greater than actually proceeding to a properly negotiated settlement.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what matters is not so much the actual percentage increase offered but the way in which that increase is to be financed? If the increase, whatever it is, leads to higher unit costs, surely that would mean that the fare-paying public would have to pay the bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course it means that, or that the taxpayer would have to pay, or a combination of both. What is important in this negotiation, especially for Railtrack setting out as a new company, is to get rid of some of the practices that have grown up in the industry over the years and to put the signalmen on a proper salaried basis, looking to the efficiencies that can be gained by the modern technology not just for their benefit and for the benefit of the travelling public but, I should have thought, for the benefit of the railway industry as a whole.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I have a genuine inquiry for information purposes. Can the noble Lord tell the House how much of the productivity increases of the signalmen is due to investment and how much to improved practices or greater inconvenience to the signalmen?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that they go together. Some of the improved practices can already be delivered and that is perhaps the first part of the package. The third part of the package relates to restructuring and productivity which can be delivered into the future. Some of that revolves around modern technology and getting away from what are still some very antiquated practices in signal boxes.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not quite clear that it is offensive for a quarter of the present signal staff to be considerably worse off under the Railtrack offer than they are at present? Does not the Minister begin to concede that? Is he not aware that the whole country recognises that the Government have got their fingerprints all over the question of intervention as far as these negotiations are concerned? Therefore, does the Minister agree that it is time for the Government to come clean and to say that they want a settlement, otherwise they will be condemned for the strike, as they deserve to be condemned?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as regards the last sentence of the noble Lord's question, we are getting back to the old philosophy of settling at any price. I should have thought that the history of the 1960s and 1970s shows the fundamental error of that approach. With reference to the specific point about some signalmen facing a pay cut under the package which has been put forward, those are details which ought to be for Railtrack. I understand that Railtrack has said that there will be compensation for those signalmen whose earnings will fall.

Air Pollution by Motor Vehicles
2.52 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps should now be taken to reduce air pollution caused by petrol and oil combustion fumes.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, despite last weekend's pollution episode, pollution from road vehicles is falling as a result of tighter controls on both vehicle emissions and fuel quality. There will continue to be a sustained decline in emissions of pollutants into the early part of the next decade.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that, although pollution is said to be falling, it is still very serious and the number of motor vehicles is ever increasing? Can my noble friend say how soon petrol will be lead free and how long will diesel fuels, which cause the worst pollution, have the tax advantage which they do now?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the replacement cycle for motor vehicles is between 10 years and 15 years and close to 60 per cent. of the cars on the roads today will run on lead-free petrol. However, there will always be a residual need for leaded petrol, for example, for classic car owners. As to the second part of my noble friend's question, matters of taxation are for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the: Exchequer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there are very many premature deaths and illnesses caused by the amount of pollution that we have to put up with today? Would it not be wise for the Government to consider talking to specialists, particularly in the medical profession, who have some thoughts and ideas as to what might be done to combat what is now becoming a very serious issue? I hope that the Government will attempt to talk to people who are concerned about this matter and listen to their ideas, which would need legislation to put into practice in order to reduce pollution and the number of premature deaths.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I draw your Lordships' attention to a discussion paper on air quality standards and management which was published jointly by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment. It is entitled Improving Air Quality. It was issued in March and the consultation period closed at the end of June. We shall be studying the recommendations most carefully.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Viscount indicate whether the Government are considering random kerbside car emission tests as another way of trying to control this problem?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's question on that point. However, I can tell him that there is substantial kerbside testing of lorries and buses.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has my noble friend noted a recent survey by the RAC which suggests that only 10 per cent. of road vehicles in this country are causing a very large proportion of the air pollution from motor vehicles? Are the Government considering any way of dealing with that 10 per cent., which are old vehicles and badly maintained? Will the Government consider how they might be brought up to standard?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lord, we are aware that, based on the results from the Stedman remote sensing gas analyser, Dr. Jeremy Vanke of the RAC has claimed that 10 per cent. of cars produce 50 per cent. of pollution. There are problems with this device which we hope can be overcome. At the moment it is too inaccurate to become part of the legal process. I can assure my noble friend that further measures are; being introduced to give stricter emission limits for diesel vehicles and buses. They will add to those which have come into force since 1993. More cuts will be in place from October 1996.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the Government are not being complacent about this

1275
matter. Is the Minister aware that the estimated death rate from traffic fumes is now 10,500 a year, which is 35 times as many as it is alleged die from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke? Will he take further measures and consider whether the increased use of biofuels might assist the problem? If it is found that they would assist, will the Government do something to reduce the taxes on such fuels to encourage their use?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will continue to seek ways in which pollution from motor cars and buses and other motor vehicles can be reduced. The Government are aware of the environmental benefits, for example, of natural gas as a vehicle fuel. In the short term that may have more potential than, say, electric cars and would be particularly applicable to short-range urban public service vehicles.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, will my noble friend accept the contention that, in discussing the problems caused by the combustion of petrol and oil, we are but discussing the symptoms of an even deeper problem? The real problem is burgeoning humanity with its insatiable appetites. They are the ultimate polluters.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we have recently issued guidance to planning authorities (Document PPG13) on reducing the reliance on motorised transport. That puts forward proposals to reduce the reliance on cars, etc.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister has stated that a few vehicles produce the most pollution. Will he not consider a scheme by which the public can report by telephone the details of offending vehicles?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am pleased to report that we have such a scheme already in process. It has been in place for about two years. There is a document called Reporting Smoky Diesels which includes telephone numbers in various parts of the country where such offences can be reported.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, everybody is aware of the importance of catalytic converters. But is the noble Viscount aware of the appalling smell emitted by these devices, which is worse than the pollution? There is the smell of rotten eggs. Will the Government encourage the motor manufacturers to try to produce a device which does not do that?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am aware of this particular smell. I am not an expert in this sector, but I believe that it does disappear over a period and that it is particularly strong in new vehicles. As the catalyst burns itself in, the smell gets weaker.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that one of the most significant actions which can be taken to reduce pollution is to encourage people to travel by rail rather than by motor car? What steps are the Government taking to replace the senior management of Railtrack to ensure that our railways run seven days a week instead of six days a week?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport has already entered into a debate on these matters. I refer the noble Lord to the previous Question.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has raised an extremely important matter? It is not frivolous; it is a very important matter. Does the noble Viscount further recognise that levels of nitrogen dioxide are getting worse? Concentrations in London, for instance, increased by 17 per cent. in the past year alone. Does the noble Viscount further recognise that we have an asthma crisis in this country? As was revealed in a Written Question in another place, the incidence of asthma in this country has increased by an average of almost 150 per cent. in the past 10 years. That is a serious problem, which is caused by emissions from motor vehicles. Finally, will the noble Viscount take on board the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the RAC, which is a respectable body, fingered 10 per cent. of vehicles as being the cause of the major part of pollution? It is perfectly easy under the equivalent of the Clean Air Acts to eliminate that 10 per cent. when necessary. I hope that the noble Viscount will take that on board.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I take on board all the points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution and the Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes are looking, for the Department of Health, at evidence of the effects of air pollution as it pertains particularly to asthma and other complaints. The results will be published later this year. Obviously, we cannot pre-empt that work, but we shall consider what further action might be needed in the light of those reports. As to the noble Lord's reference to the question from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on the RAC's claim, as I said, we are investigating the matter and the instrument by which the measurements were obtained. If it has any great value, we shall, of course, make use of it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind the certainty that the number of cars will continue to increase and the well-established fact that people's health will continue to suffer from atmospheric pollution caused in such ways, particularly the health of young people, whose nostrils are nearer to the ground and of old people, who are more vulnerable, will the Government consider giving encouragement to the use of alternative sources of fuel, such as natural gas, which has been mentioned?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government are deeply concerned about the levels of pollution and their effects on all people, both old and young. We shall continue to pursue policies to reduce such pollution.

Council of Ministers: Voting Figures
3.2 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their position on the release of voting figures in the Council of Ministers on legislative matters.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, as part of efforts towards greater openness in the European Union, we were active in securing agreement by the Council in December 1993 on procedures for publishing votes. We fully support the arrangements for implementing those procedures.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer and congratulate the Government on the part that they played in opening up the proceedings of the Council of Ministers. However, does she agree that, although people are glad to know how their representatives voted, they would also like to know why? Therefore, does she further agree that the Council of Ministers' considerations of legislative matters should be made public, as are considerations of legislative matters in the British Parliament?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is a rare day when the noble Lord congratulates the Government, but I am very happy to accept that we played a part in changing the attitudes of other member states and in gaining this improvement in the publication of votes. As to the reasons for the votes, I am sure that from country to country, even when the vote is the same, the reasons for the vote may be different. It would be difficult for the Council to publish reasons when they are not always given. However, there is absolutely no reason why they should not be revealed in questions. When we hold press conferences at the end of Council meetings, fellow Ministers are only too willing to give reasons. I am sure that that will become the order of the day. However, I must advise the noble Lord that, although the Netherlands, Denmark and we ourselves are very open to that, some other countries are not.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister accept my congratulations also on the progress that she seems to have made on this? Is she aware, however, that we are still a long way from the position that was arrived at in the Edinburgh Council on 12th December 1992? The document that was issued then stated:
"When a formal vote is taken in Council, the record of the vote (including explanations of vote where delegations request these) shall be published."
We are still not much further forward on that. When the Minister refers to the "Council of Ministers", is she including not only the European Council, but also the 30 other Councils which are in session from time to time? The general impression is that there is still far too much secrecy surrounding these proceedings.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I very much sympathise with the noble Lord when he talks about the need for all Councils to be open in the way in which the European Council has become open. The word "Councils" refers to all Councils, not solely to the European Council. It is clear that the moves that we took in Edinburgh in 1992 have slowly become a proper procedure because, when we took the agreement at the last Foreign Affairs Council in December last year that legislative decisions would automatically be published, unless exceptionally the Council decided against publication, that was followed up by the publication of other votes. I can assure the noble Lord—I willingly accept even his congratulations on the fact—that some real progress in this matter has been made thanks to the British.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister will no doubt think that this is a strange day when I say how very much I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I should like to be clear exactly where we are on this issue. As I understand it, a policy change is expected to be announced this week. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is so. That change will be that there is now to be a public, open and formal register of Ministers' votes in the Council of Ministers. That is to be initiated from now, but the voting records from 1989 to 1993 are not to be revealed. Is that the position? I understand that only votes are to be revealed, not the reasons for the voting. That is what I understand to be the position. Can the Minister confirm or deny that position?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can confirm that after discussions at both the Birmingham and Edinburgh Councils in 1992, we now have these major changes. Since December last year, most votes taken in Council have been made public in the press release issued after each meeting but, as I answered before, not the reasons. As far as decisions made before December 1993 are concerned, the agreement that we reached on 6th December was that future votes would be released, not past votes. I do not believe that we could have achieved unanimity on getting such agreement on past votes, even if they could have been found in all the documents. Each member state can obviously declare its own votes before 1993, but it cannot force others to declare theirs. What we have gained is a release of all future voting figures, but not of retrospective declarations.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Trumpington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a. Statement that is to be made in another place on the BBC White Paper.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may draw attention to the Marshalled List on the Bill. On Monday, the fourth Marshalled List ran to 24 pages. Your Lordships sat until after midnight on that day and disposed of seven-and-a-half pages of the Marshalled List. Today's Marshalled List, however, is only two pages less than Monday's; in other words, five-and-a-half pages of amendments have been added in the past 48 hours. We all admire the assiduity of those who have been scrutinising the Bill, but if we go on adding amendments as we go on through the Bill, we shall be sitting on it throughout August.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I of course have the responsibility for answering many of the amendments that are put down, and, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I admire the assiduity with which Members of the Opposition, and, indeed, some of my noble friends, have put down amendments. I am very much in the hands of those who wish to discuss the Bill, but I join with the noble and learned Lord in hoping that our deliberations will not go on for too long. We have some important matters to discuss, but I hope that we can deal with them speedily.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 30 [The 1968 Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 30 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: The purpose of debating the clause is to enable the Committee to consider the relationship of the Bill to the Transport Act 1968. It is perhaps only in relation to this matter that we can debate the issue. I do not propose to divide the Committee on it, but I want to compare not just the approaches but some of the details of the two provisions that we are considering today compared with those enacted in 1968.
I concede that the Bill contains some improvements. Indeed, as we have stated from the very first, we are against maintaining on the statute book useless bureaucratic rules which do nothing for anyone, but I submit that in relation to the Bill as a whole, in particular since we are now considering Chapter III, the public is likely to be caused serious prejudice, and there will be a considerable clash with a great deal of the spirit and philosophy underlying the 1968 Act.
Essential safeguards for the general public in relation to safety and the environment, particularly so far as concerns local interests, are being substantially discarded. Those are issues of safety which have their
1280
root in the 1968 Act. We shall debate later, for example, Clause 33, which will remove the right of local residents to object for environmental reasons to licences being granted—something we regard as unacceptable. I mention that now merely as illustrative of the point that I am currently making. Safety provisions affecting heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles, which were controlled strictly by the 1968 Act, will be impaired seriously, if not abandoned altogether. It is illustrative to contrast the approach of those who have framed the Bill and those who framed the 1968 legislation.
The 1968 Act provided for strict controls on heavy goods vehicles, including 16-axle, 38-tonne lorries. They were required to be licensed every five years. The provisions of the Bill that we shall be considering shortly substantially impair that approach. Why was the original provision made? Why the change? I believe that the original provision was introduced to ensure that road hauliers, who do not have a uniformly good record —they did not then and do not today; and I am in no way indicting the substantial body of road hauliers who do conduct their business in the best possible way—had their vehicles investigated properly at specific intervals to ensure that they were maintained properly. That was at least to mitigate—because one cannot wholly avoid them—risks of serious accidents, which of course involve not just the drivers of those vehicles but pedestrians and other third parties. That was the prime reason for the control.
What evidence is there of its substantial failure? Surely it is for the Government to demonstrate that that is the case; that there has been a substantial failure of the rules with which they are now seeking to interfere. It is not enough, surely, that it should merely constitute a burden upon some road hauliers. In my submission, there is no evidence of that kind. This is a system which has worked fairly and well. It has provided a benefit for the public outside the industry and indeed also, I should think, to the larger, reputable road hauliers against the activities of less scrupulous operators, and there are, as I say, still too many of them. Why, then, scrap the regular checks? Why damage the requirements which have been imposed to ensure higher driving standards? Why substitute irregular checks, if indeed there are to be any at all?
All those advantages, I repeat, were conferred by the 1968 Act. So why have the Government embarked upon those changes? Has there been some huge public demand? Did the public give any indication to the department that it wanted the safety and environmental aspects of the legislation to be diminished? Or rather was it because there has been, for some considerable period of time now, intensive lobbying and campaigning by certain elements of the road haulage industry?
That industry, on at least large components of it, has always opposed legislation which has limited its ability to function, despite certain safety and environmental precautions which were plainly needed. Its philosophy was, "Leave it to the market. We will sort it all out. We can deal with malpractices ourselves", even if there was no evidence to support that proposition, as is clearly the case.

1281
The overwhelming evidence is that the industry—the public service vehicle industry—has been resistant to change on too many occasions. That has included also, I have to say, the car industry. I witnessed that when I was dealing with transport and environmental issues as a member of the European Commission. The car industries of Britain, France, Spain and Italy were against the anti-pollution controls that the Commission wished to introduce back in 1985 and 1986. The road haulage industry was against the proposition that the Commission advanced—I know, because I did it—in respect of reasonable driving hours and rest periods. Indeed, it used its best endeavours to persuade the Government, and other governments too, to ensure that there was in reality little possibility of proper investigation of breaches of the rules that had obtained until 1985, and to ensure too that the rules that were to be enacted later would have very little value. That of course is why the European Commission is reconsidering rest periods and drivers' hours—a high priority, I should have thought, against the backcloth of serious accidents that prevails in Europe, including this country. Perhaps I may add in parenthesis that 12 member states decided to avoid supporting the Commission's proposal, which would have applied much stricter requirements, and instead went for a more permissive set of regulations. Those regulations have not worked and have not been capable of proper enforcement.
Sadly, I believe that essentially the Government's proposals are an industry-led concession. Public safety and the protection of the environment are sacrificed for some cost savings to the industry, which are marginal in any event. According to the briefing document that was prepared by the House of Commons Library, transport managers "dread" the five-yearly renewal of operator licences. They represent an undue burden—I quote the Minister who the other day adopted that phrase—on industry.
What a contrast in approach between the 1968 Act and these highly partial provisions. It is truly an example of the allegations which we have made of an unprecedented, heavily biased task force representing only one interest and setting the agenda for the Government to make up their mind on these proposals. That is all that the Government have listened to. As we have said, it has never been denied that the industry has subscribed heavily to the Tory Party's funds, and it is now getting its reward.
Lord Harlech: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It is of interest that over the past 25 years, under the different genders of political administration, road haulage has increased and now accounts for 84 per cent. of our transport—the freight that is delivered to our shops, factories and therefore industries. It is not appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to believe that road transport should be discriminated against increasingly by statute, because it is carrying 84 per cent. of our freight to every outlet that the public requires, whether factory or shop.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. The logic of his intervention
1282
was to suggest not only that road haulage should not be discriminated against, although I am not sure what he means by that—
Lord Harlech: With respect, we have GVQs and roadside checks. A policeman and two officials from the traffic commission can stop any vehicle at any time. That is a regular occurrence in road transport operations. One is eligible to be stopped and checked at any time, whether for emissions or whatever else.
The business of emissions was somewhat unclear. When we are checked—
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may—
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have not finished yet.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: We are getting a little out of our procedural way—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Will my noble friend Lord Harlech accept that we should all like to hear what he has to say? Perhaps he would like to make a speech when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has finished his. I believe that the Committee will agree that his was not an intervention but perhaps the beginning of a somewhat lengthy speech. May we hear what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has to say? If we do not agree with him —and I shall not—we shall have an opportunity later to debate with him.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful for the characteristically helpful attitude displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. For some time he and I have been involved in the small transport consortium in this place —and when he was a Minister and I was a Commissioner—and I always welcome help from that quarter.
I may forget later, so it is as well to respond now to what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said. He appeared to be suggesting that we should sweep away all the terrible infringements on the freedom of road hauliers. I do not understand that the Government's intentions are to achieve that, so his quarrel must be with the Minister—
Lord Harlech: If the noble Lord—
Lord Clinton-Davis: No, I shall not give way again because I should get into trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, if I were even to think of it.
The Government assert that they are merely seeking to streamline the system of management. I do not believe that to be true. I believe that it will be infinitely more difficult to procure evidence for prosecutions, because regular licensing represents a key safeguard in the system of enforcement. That is our submission and we shall deal with it in detail later.
What has been the reaction of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation? The Government say that they are under no obligation to consult the Police Federation. I wonder whether that is always the case and that they never consult the federation. I do not believe that to be the case. I understand that, while supporting some of the

1283
Government's contentions, the Association of Chief Police Officers is most anxious about this element. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that.
The trouble is that there is a growing problem with falling standards in the road haulage sector. Let us take, for example, the annual report of the licensing authority which was issued recently. It depicted that the number of cases considered by the licensing review boards, which monitor the performances of operators who fail to reach the required standards, increased by a massive 56 per cent. compared with the previous year. The number of refusals of operator licence renewals showed a 50 per cent. increase on the previous year. Therefore, there is a great deal of evidence that, as a result of the current economic climate, road haulage operators have been under considerable pressure to cut their costs. Many have done so by reducing their maintenance costs and taking a chance on running unsafe vehicles, which represents a clear threat to public safety.
The industry—and almost without question the Government accept what the industry says—asserts that there would be cost savings of £2.6 million. But what is the cost which is not contained in balance sheets? What is the cost to the public in terms of any impairment of safety and of the environment? A few moments ago we heard a little about damage to the environment by vehicular traffic. What will be the costs of the enforcement that is to be undertaken by local authorities, the police, the vehicles' inspectorate and the licensing review boards? Will they outweigh the savings to operators? Will the costs of enforcement simply be transferred from the operator to those bodies?
Anxiety has also been expressed by the European Commission in its White Paper on a common transport policy. It stated:
"The road haulage industry is characterised by barriers to entry leading to a relatively large number of small operators trading alongside a smaller number of large ones".
The White Paper states as one of its priorities for action that the conditions for access to the profession should be re-examined, as well as the regimes for compliance with licensing conditions and for road worthiness testing of vehicles. That priority should be supported in this country and not negated, and I believe that that will be achieved at least in part by this Bill.
Unduly low costs for transporting goods, occasioned by cutting corners and avoiding certain essential costs, are designed to promote road transport to the disadvantage of more environmentally friendly modes of transport. That, in part, is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech.
I believe that the approach that has been adopted by the Government in that chapter of the Bill is not conducive to the public interest. It should never have appeared before us in the first place. Therefore, we oppose that approach.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Harlech: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. I understand that the road haulage industry is highly regulated. Perhaps he will tell me what his government did in the 17 years in
1284
which they were in power to substantiate the railway industry in order to take freight off the roads and not encourage the road transport industry.
Lord Clinton-Davis: We did very much more than the present Government. But I should get into desperate trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, if I were to embark upon a debate about the railway industry.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Lord is right. We are in danger of having a general debate on the road haulage industry, and I do not believe that this chapter of the Bill is quite the right vehicle for that.
I take a somewhat different view from that taken by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am going to use this opportunity of a round-robin debate on the present clause so that I do not have to bob up and down as we go through the multitude of amendments to be discussed later this afternoon. I believe that I can say all that I want to say in one go. But it is necessary to challenge one or two remarks made by the noble Lord opposite.
I was rather surprised by the condemnatory tone which he took in relation to the haulage industry which, by and large, has served the nation fairly well. He asked the Government to explain to him where is the substantial failure of the rules contained in the 1968 Act which occasioned this change of heart and deregulation of the regime. It is not for the Government to demonstrate any failure of the rules at all. This Bill is not about the failure of rules. It is about deregulation and removing unnecessary burdens from industry.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister referred to undue burdens, but that phrase is not contained in the Bill. I hope that he will accept the incorporation into the Bill of the word "undue" or "unreasonable", but at the moment we are merely considering burdens.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I slipped into a trap and I beg the Committee's pardon for so doing. I should have referred to the removal of burdens. That is what this legislation is about.
The noble Lord is wrong to suggest that the provisions will eliminate regular inspections. They do nothing of the sort. The O-level licence holder is still subject to regular and random inspections so that there is no diminution of the safety element which is part of the inspection scheme.
The road haulage industry is not resistant to change; and it never has been. In its own view, it is certainly paying its own track costs. It is meeting pollution damages through the taxation system. This chapter of the Bill essentially removes the necessity to reapply for a licence at every fifth year. It does not mean in any way that the traffic commissioners cannot make changes to existing licences in terms of revocation and other conditions, which was an element of the 1968 Act. Those provisions will remain when this Bill passes into an Act.
Therefore, I do not understand what the noble Lord is grumbling about. There is no evidence that safety is threatened by the provisions of the Bill. Precisely the same enforcement levels can be maintained by police, trading standards officers and the commissioners. Indeed, the computerised system now employed means

1285
that traffic commissioners have almost instantaneous information of every transgression, whether in relation to the vehicle or the licence, wherever it may take place in the United Kingdom.
I cannot see what lies behind the series of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It seems to me that they are an undisguised attack on the road haulage industry. They seek to impose even further controls which will achieve very little, whereas the Bill seeks to remove unnecessary burdens on—in this case—the road haulage industry.
Lord Skelmersdale: I should like to look at the problem from a slightly different angle. As I said on Second Reading, I have the honour to sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Every year the Department of Transport produces an instrument to increase the costs of operators' licences. Recently, various members of the committee had occasion to query that and I am glad to say that those queries were answered satisfactorily by the Department of Transport.
I understand that in recent years the licences have changed from three-year to five-year licences. They cost several thousands of pounds. Although the Joint Committee is prevented by its standing orders from considering policy, individual members of the committee are bound to ask themselves from time to time what is the need for that licensing requirement.
When listening to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on the one hand and my noble friend Lord Lucas on the other, it seems to me that the best way to attack the offending vehicle and licence holder for transgressing any pollution, road safety or other regulation which inevitably is attached to road transport of whatever size is through the vehicle itself.
Of course we all recognise the continuing need for licensing authorities to be able to check on operators and their activities at any time. But I have gone through the Bill fairly carefully, as other Members of the Committee must have done, and I can find nothing in it which prevents that continuing to happen.
Furthermore, Clause 34 adds specifically to the 1968 Act conditions for securing road safety. We should consider that and involve ourselves in that rather more. We should not concern ourselves with the five-yearly operator's licence. I still accept that there must be an operator's licence and that, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, operators must be checked on from time to time. But I do not see why that has to take place at quite such regular intervals. Perhaps we can be told.
Lord Monkswell: In rising to support my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I should like to put forward a slightly different view on the matter. However, it is also different from that expressed by other speakers. I should like to concentrate on the historical and technological context of the legislation and the proposals now before the Committee. We have only to think back to the 1960s to realise that there was a burgeoning increase in the use of road haulage for freight because of technological changes and the cheapness of oil vis-à-vis the railways and the development of different industrial, commercial and residential styles of living and working.
1286
I believe that we should talk about two industries; namely, the road haulage industry and the manufacturing industry which supplies the vehicles. Both industries were fragmented, if I may put it that way, in that there was a large number of road haulage operators in effectively rather small units. That situation also characterised the manufacture of road haulage vehicles. If that situation, whereby the industry began to develop and expand rapidly because of the changes in technology and in the price of oil and so on, had been allowed to continue unregulated, grave problems would have arisen.
Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee one example of what I mean. I worked in the road haulage industry in the 1960s. I can remember being told by one of the drivers that it was a regular occurrence for the big ends of his engine to fail while he was driving along the road. He would then have to park, dismantle the engine sump and replace the big end shells, scraping them in and fitting the engine back together again. Such a job took several hours to complete. Then he would get back in the cab and continue his journey. If we can imagine such a situation multiplied a thousandfold occurring on our motorway system, not only would there be a problem for the road haulage industry but, if lorries were continually breaking down on the side of the motorway, there would also be a problem for the whole of society. We would, indeed, have a real problem.
I am not saying that the 1968 Act effectively prevented such things happening. However, it was part of the process of regulating the industry to ensure that modem technology was implemented and that both the manufacturing industry and the road haulage industry invested in modern equipment. But what has changed between the 1960s and the 1990s? As has already been said, we now have a situation where a very high proportion of freight in this country is carried by road. We have a vastly extended motorway system compared with that which we had 30 years ago.
There have been changes; but probably the most significant change has been in terms of the manufacturing scene. I believe we all recognise the fact that there are far fewer manufacturers of road haulage vehicles these days than there were 30 years ago. By and large, that has been beneficial in the sense that there has been the ability to invest in economies of scale which have reduced the price of vehicles comparatively and enabled the introduction of new technology.
There is one further interesting question. What is likely to happen as a result of deregulation? We can look at another area of deregulation; namely, the buses. That deregulation had, by and large, one or two positive aspects; but it also had some quite horrendous negative aspects. One of the things that happened as a result of that deregulation was the introduction and the use of smaller buses. I have in mind the smaller buses that run around our suburbs picking up people and taking them to their destinations. That was a positive result of deregulation in that it created the conditions to enable the industry to invest in what was effectively an aspect of new technology—a new type of bus.
I believe we all recognise that horrendous problems also arose because of that deregulation, one of which

1287
was the use by operators of old and, indeed, quite decrepit buses in the hope, effectively, of making a fast buck. Some operators undercut their competitors by not investing in modern machinery, effective maintenance regimes, and so on. That created problems for the industry and introduced unfair competition as regards the better operators. It also created problems for the travelling public in the sense that people have had to put up with some fairly arduous riding conditions, if I may put it that way. Moreover, environmental pollution has been aggravated.
One of the side effects of bus deregulation is that drivers now park their buses in the centre of Manchester at the bus station without switching off their engines. That is because they have such a struggle in starting them up. Therefore, we have many buses parked in the centre of Manchester during their turn-around time with their engines running. That has introduced a pollution problem not just for passengers but also for people living in the centre of Manchester.
What is likely to be the result of the deregulation proposed by the Government? If it will produce just a marginal saving of cost to the operators, then we need to ask the further question: what will be the downside? If the Government can point to the possibility of new technology, new methods of working and the introduction of new investment into the industry as a result of changing the regulatory regime, that might be a positive reason for going for it. But if we look at the vehicle haulage industry, it can be seen that, basically, the only major significant change on the books at present is the increase in the vehicle weight regulation. There are other reasons in this country why the latter is not a feasible proposition. Indeed, we only need to think of the standard of bridges, and so on, that would have to be upgraded to allow for such an increase in the weight restriction. I am not aware of any significant changes in that respect. I see that a noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Harlech: I am much obliged. I wish to intervene for just a moment. It is evident to me that we are discussing in great detail an historical issue. As I have already stated, 84 per cent. of our freight is now carried by road. That is due to the non-investment in rail freight over many years through different genders of government. Indeed, we now have to control lorries. As regards operators, we now have annual testing and also random testing in lay-bys which can take place at any time during a 24-hour period. The rest of it is up to the Government. The fact that we continue to discuss such a matter is a reality of kinetic energy that we have given business, and therefore our distribution of that technology to road freight. We have done it both Europewide and nationwide.
Lord Monkswell: I understand what the noble Lord is saying; but the implication of his remarks is that the road haulage industry is discriminated against in terms of the regulatory regime. I suggest that that is not really the case because if one looks at other mechanisms of
1288
transporting goods, one can see that the railways, for example, are heavily regulated and circumscribed with rules and regulations. The fact that it tends to be all within the one industry does not do away with the fact that there are people checking the tracks and the trains to ensure that safety and environmental regimes are met. The air transport industry is also heavily regulated to ensure that safety, anti-pollution and other requirements are met. Therefore it is not right to say that the road haulage industry is particularly penalised in terms of the regulatory regime. In concluding my remarks at this point, I must say that I support my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I would ask the Government what benefits society will achieve by changing the regulatory regime as they are proposing at the moment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe there has been a certain amount of ingenuity shown in having a debate on a single line clause with regard to the 1968 Act. I shall resist the temptation to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, down memory lane. I am sure many Members of the Committee remember motoring in the old days. My recollection is that every spring and autumn one had to flush out the car radiator to remove or to put in anti-freeze. However, I shall not comment on that any further.
I turn to the question that I was originally asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, as regards the 1968 Act, to which of course this clause refers. That Act provided in Part V a licensing system for the operators of goods vehicles used for the carriage of goods for hire or reward, or in the course of a trade or business. The purposes of the system are to help to ensure road and vehicle safety, to provide level terms of competition between operators, and to control the use of operating centres. The changes proposed in Chapter III of Part I of this Bill, to which this clause is the introduction, are concerned mainly with the procedures which have to be followed by operators who wish to remain in the industry. They also simplify and clarify, partly by minor consolidation, some of the provisions so that licence-holders can be more certain what their licences do and do not authorise them to do.
The main deregulation provided by Chapter III is to move from the present system of licences granted for a maximum of five years to a system of continuous licensing. We believe that the current system is unnecessary and a costly administrative burden on operators. They have to apply for fresh licences whether or not they are making material changes in their operation.
I shall give the Committee some idea of the unnecessary burden this represents. I can tell the Committee that in 1992–93, out of 14,500 applications for replacement licences, all but 250 resulted in fresh licences being granted in the terms which had been applied for. Out of that 250, 90 were refused outright and the remainder were granted on reduced terms. None of the 90 refusals and only a handful of the licences granted on reduced terms were for reasons associated with the suitability of operating centres.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in supporting the five year provision, pointed to the research

1289
document in the House of Commons Library which he said stated that transport managers dread the licensing system. In fact, the document states that transport managers dread the bureaucratic burden of the licensing system. It is that bureaucracy that we are tackling but we are leaving the system substantially in place. The cost to the operator every five years is considerable. For example, it costs over £100 for each of the advertisements the operator must place in the press when he applies to renew his licence. From the consultations we undertook on our proposals for the deregulation of operator licensing, we know that the provisions of this part of the Bill will be welcome to the industry. We have also recognised the fears that some other interested parties have for the environment, safety and the control of operators and their operating centres, and we have provided appropriate safeguards.
We recognise the continuing need for licensing authorities to be able to check on operators and their activities at any time notwithstanding the change to continuous licensing. There is nothing in the Bill which would undermine the licensing authorities' powers in this regard. Applications for licences by new operators and for major variations to existing licences would still be subject to full scrutiny, with an opportunity for objections and representations to be made by interested parties following the publication and advertisement, as appropriate, of the details of the application. There would be an opportunity for the licensing authority to review operating centres at five-yearly intervals to ensure their continued suitability and to attach or vary conditions or, in certain cases, remove an operating centre altogether.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth quite rightly pointed out that there would be no change in the licensing authorities' ability at any time to investigate any operator causing concern, to check on required standards and to take disciplinary action.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale pointed out there would be no change to the role of the vehicle inspectorate in technical checking at operating centres and at the roadside on vehicle standards, tachographs, overloading, and so on. Other provisions of this chapter are aimed at making more detailed and some minor changes to the provisions of the 1968 Act to make the current system work better overall. We have also taken the opportunity to consolidate some of the provisions.
I sum up and, I hope, allay some of the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. We believe that Chapter III should make the system of goods vehicle operator licensing less burdensome on operators without in any way reducing safety controls or environmental standards. As my noble friend Lord Harlech rightly pointed out, this is an important industry as regards the whole basis of our economy and I think it is only right that we try to get the balance of these things correct and do not allow the balance to tilt one way or the other.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that intervention. He is always sweetly reasonable. However, at the end of the day one has to uncover the tinsel a little. I simply do not accept—he would not expect me to do so—the caveat which he just entered
1290
about the qualifications and the safeguards that are still being maintained and all the rest of it. I, too, agree this is a question of balance. I do not underestimate the value of this industry. It is an important industry which should be encouraged. However, at the same time I do not believe that the balance should be tilted in the way the Government are tilting it. It is not only I who take this view. There is a well-known journal entitled Motor Transport which states:
"In the UK just about anybody is welcome"—
as regards entry to the industry. The article continues:
"The UK's licensing authorities seem reluctant to revoke licences and effective disciplinary action is far too rare".
—that is even under the existing system—
"And, faced with these relaxed attitudes, what does the Government do? It sets out hellbent to get rid of every device designed to keep up standards of safety and operation".
I do not quite go so far as that; but that is what Motor Transport had to say about that particular matter. In another editorial on 27th January Motor Transport stated,
"the Department of Transport is showing signs that it has not quite thought through this deregulation drive.
Some impending regulations have already been exposed as farcical"—
Those are the Government's regulations.
"Take the plans for vehicle height restrictions, for example. Firms operating vehicles over 4.88m will have to give local authorities two days' notice before every truck movement. Transport companies have condemned this; trade associations have warned firms will be forced out of the business; and local authorities are unsure if they will have the manpower even to check proposed routes. Yet these rules are due to come into force at any time".
I am not sure whether they have come into force by now. The article continues:
"What is the point of killing tiresome rules and replacing them with equally irksome regulations"?
The article states:
"the Government must encourage the growth of professional firms that work legally and discourage cowboys. Remember, moves to cut red tape will make life easier for professionals. But they will also make it easier for the cowboys".
That is the anxiety expressed by Motor Transport, which is a respected journal. That is the difference between the two approaches: that of the Government and that of this side of the House.
This has been a useful debate. I thank those Members of the Committee who participated. However, as I indicated, I do not intend to press the matter to a Division.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: This may be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Future of the BBC
4 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the future of the BBC which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. The Statement is as follows:

1291
"I should like to make a statement about the future of the BBC. I am today publishing a White Paper with the Government's policies for the BBC's role and operations after December 1996, when its present Royal Charter expires. A copy of the White Paper, with a user friendly summary, will be available in the Vote Office when I have finished speaking.
"In developing these policies we have been able to take account of advice, ideas and comments from a wide variety of sources. We had the replies from many organisations and individuals to the Government's consultation document, published in November 1992. I am grateful to everyone who wrote to us, and especially to those who arranged conferences and seminars so that the issues could be discussed. The BBC put forward its own views about its future, which provided a useful focus for public debate, and it has continued to develop its proposals, taking account of the debate about its future and changes in the world of broadcasting.
"We also had the benefit of the National Heritage Select Committee's report on the future of the BBC, which was published in December last year. The committee took evidence from a large number of interested parties. The White Paper includes the Government's response to the Select Committee's report and its recommendations. I have, of course, not yet had time to consider the Select Committee's report on sports sponsorship and television coverage, which was published earlier today. Its views on listed events and subscription channels have attracted a great deal of interest and the Government will take careful note of them. The White Paper acknowledges that the present restrictions are necessary and that there are arguments for strengthening them.
"Our consultation document made it clear that the Government saw a continuing role for the BBC as the major public service broadcaster in the United Kingdom. But new opportunities are being created by technological developments. The Government believe that the BBC is well-placed to evolve into an international multi-media enterprise, building on its present commercial services in this country and overseas. We will do all we can to encourage this process.
"The responses to our consultation document showed that there is considerable public support for the wide range and diversity of the programmes and services which the BBC provides for audiences throughout the United Kingdom. However, public support for the BBC would diminish unless the corporation could demonstrate that it was cost effective.
"The BBC has, in the last few years, set in hand extensive, and often painful, measures to improve its efficiency, reducing its overheads and reorganising its operations. It is in the midst of a difficult process of modernisation, which the Government expect to continue in the years ahead. The results so far are encouraging. As a broadcaster, the BBC has been able to invest over £100 million more in
1292
programmes. As an organisation, it can face the future with more flexibility and with a clearer view of how its various activities contribute to fulfilling its strategic purpose—to provide broadcast services of information, entertainment and education.
"In the light of this, the Government will recommend that the BBC should be granted a new Royal Charter for a term of 10 years from January 1997. A new agreement between the Government and the BBC would govern its operations; this would replace the present licence and agreement.
"The new Royal Charter will set out the responsibilities of the governors and the national councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The board of governors will have a strategic oversight of the BBC's activities and management. The governors and the national councils will have a special responsibility for ensuring that the BBC's services reflect the interests and needs of the public throughout the country, and for improving the BBC's accountability to its audience and to Parliament.
"Within the United Kingdom, the BBC should continue to take a lead in programme making and to provide its present television and radio services. These will be funded from the licence fee, at least for the time being. The Select Committee, after considering all the options, concluded that the licence fee was the best available method of funding the BBC's services. The Government agree with that view. However, we propose there should be a review of funding from the licence fee before the year 2001 in the light of technological and other changes.
"The BBC will, of course, continue to be editorially independent and we shall expect it to maintain high standards in all its programming. Like other broadcasters, it will continue to have obligations to observe due impartiality on controversial issues and to ensure programmes do not encourage crime or offend against good taste, decency or public feeling.
"Overseas, the BBC will continue to broadcast World Service Radio, financed by grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This service has over 130 million listeners and is widely recognised for the reliability and accuracy of its news.
"This reputation is an asset of great value, both culturally and commercially. The Government consider that the BBC should be encouraged to exploit further its commercial potential.
"The main changes we propose for the future are, therefore, aimed at the development of the BBC's commercial activities, particularly its international television services. As the Select Committee recognised, a new and expanding global market is opening up for broadcasting services. Broadcasting has been transformed from a mainly national to an international activity. Moreover, broadcasting, as we have known it, is likely to become only one strand in an international media market, which will include some services and products which combine elements of different media—sound, pictures and text— allowing the users to decide which they prefer. These

1293
developments will greatly extend the variety and choice available to everyone in this country and elsewhere.
"The BBC is well placed to take advantage of this growing international market: it is well known internationally; it has highly skilled production staff, a large production capacity and considerable programme archives; and it has experience of operating commercially at home and abroad.
"However, we should not risk licence payers' or taxpayers' money on commercial ventures. That is why we have encouraged the BBC to forge new partnerships with the private sector. In this way, it can take advantage of the private finance initiative and of the commercial expertise of its private sector partners. Understandably, the BBC is anxious that these partnerships should allow the BBC to keep editorial control over its programmes. This will help it to protect its brand name, which is recognised world-wide.
"The Government believe the BBC should compete commercially, but it must also compete fairly. The BBC has published a commitment to fair trading and is preparing detailed guidelines. We shall want to examine these guidelines closely and ensure that they are implemented effectively. For this reason, it is essential that its services financed from the licence fee and the grant-in-aid should be operated separately from its commercial activities.
"We are exploring with the BBC various options for the future of its transmission services. These include privatisation, in full or in part. The BBC is preparing for an early introduction of digital broadcasting services for radio and then for television. Digital technology is more efficient in the use of the frequency spectrum and opens up the possibility of even more services. It also offers opportunities to United Kingdom manufacturers of equipment and receivers.
"The purpose of these studies, which should be completed towards the end of the year, is to seek to combine the early introduction of digital broadcast-ing services with the advantages of privatisation. These include the benefits of private sector finance, since the Government do not intend to increase the licence fee to pay for introducing digital services. The Government and the BBC are clear that functions should be kept within the BBC only when there is a compelling reason for doing so.
"Although we intend that the BBC should continue to be established by Royal Charter, a number of the Government's proposals will require legislation. When there is a suitable opportunity, we propose to repeal the provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 which prevent the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority from licensing services owned, or partly owned, by the BBC. In future, any commercial broadcasting services operated by the BBC would have to be licensed by the commission or the authority. More generally, we intend to give the commission and the authority new powers to license and regulate commercial digital television and radio services. Reflecting a widespread
1294
concern over standards, we also propose to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. This will provide a clearer focus for the public's complaints about broadcasting services and reducing the number of regulatory bodies.
"The Government recognise that in the BBC the United Kingdom has an organisation which is a world leader. It makes more programmes than any organisation outside the United States and Japan. Over 99 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom can receive its services and most people use them regularly. From the perspective of my own department, no other organisation provides such active and creative patronage of the arts or does so much to make major national and artistic events and the cultural heritage of the country' accessible to everyone.
"In the next 10 years there are likely to be significant and rapid changes in broadcasting and the media generally. No one can foresee now the outcome of these changes, either nationally or internationally, but it is clear that they offer huge opportunities both for the BBC and for other United Kingdom broadcasters.
"The Government wish the BBC to be in a position to take advantage of these opportunities. Our policies keep a wide range of options open for the BBC's long-term future. We confirm its role as the United Kingdom's major public service broadcaster, but we are encouraging it to develop into a multi-media enterprise, with international interests. That prospect is reflected in the title of our White Paper: The Future of the BBC: Serving the Nation; Competing World-wide." My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to react to the Statement on the White Paper and to ask a few preliminary questions on the issues that it addresses. Our response today obviously can be no more than a very general reaction. We shall all need to study the White Paper in detail before we can offer a considered view.
One's first impression is of welcome and relief. The Government appear minded to avoid some of the perilous pitfalls into which their ideology might have impelled them. It is a relief to know that the Royal Charter is safe for the foreseeable future; that the corporation will continue at least for the time being—I refer to paragraph 9—to be funded largely by the licence fee; that it will not be forced to seek or accept advertising; and that the Government recognise the worldwide significance of its work. It is the voice of this country at its best. Other countries have always admired it and striven to imitate it. It is good that the Government are today paying public tribute to that fact.
Above all, it appears that the Government have dropped the iniquitous idea of privatising as much as possible of the BBC. In the days of the Thatcher Administration that was always a threat, and to many of

1295
us a nightmare. It now seems to have vanished over the horizon of history. For thus much we must thank the Government and also the corporation, because since the 1980s the BBC has worked tirelessly to retain its right to an index-linked licence fee, its role as a public service broadcaster and its spread of national and local radio channels. We must all commend the convincing clarity of the vision which the BBC achieved in its 1992 document, Extending Choice. Well done, Mr. Birt; that worked.
After one's relief, one's second impression is that the Statement is silent on a number of things, like the dog that did not bark. Almost nothing is said about that widely discussed proposal to sell off the BBC's complete transmitter network. It is simply here an option. There is no evaluation of the highly controversial producers' choice initiative which has wrought such administrative havoc within the corporation and produced so little effect outside it. There is no consideration of the central question of what should be the critical mass of inhouse production which the BBC must retain if its ideas are to be fulfilled. Similarly, the role and extent of the BBC's training programme are not discussed. Neither is the byzantine reticulation of the corporation's accountability struc-ture, which now, I believe, includes more than 60 advisory councils. Perhaps other noble Lords will echo my concerns at those lacunae and perhaps the noble Baroness will give us further and better particulars when she responds to our questions.
There are six specific questions arising out of the Statement on which I seek her help. First, what plans do the Government have for the future of the BBC's transmission network? Is its future secure for the next 10 years; or is it up for grabs and privatisation forthwith? The Statement is not clear about that.
Secondly, why have the Government said little and done less about the BBC management's failure to respond to the complaints and dissatisfaction of its own staff? Morale in the corporation has never been lower. Staff have been driven to take strike action; and yet Ministers seem to have been strangely silent. Why?
Thirdly, what have the Government done to encourage the BBC to develop its unique educational role, from children's TV right through to the Open University? Fourthly, what incentives can the Government offer the BBC to develop its training programmes, as the central provider for the audio-visual industry in this country? The corporation has unique experience and that experience ought to be developed and marketed.
Fifthly, should not the Government advise the BBC to simplify its accountability and user representation structures? It is not enough simply to merge the BSC and the BBC. At the present moment, with 60 advisory councils, there is real danger of the tail wagging the dog. Sixthly, can the noble Baroness tell the House anything more about the new agreement between the Government and the BBC in paragraph 7 of the Statement? Could the review of the licence fee which is mentioned in paragraph 9 take place as early as this year or next? All we are told is that it will be "before the year 2001".
1296
Until these questions can be answered and the issues they represent be seriously addressed, we can only be cautious in our welcome for what we have heard. The Government's record on broadcasting has not been good. The Broadcasting Act 1990 has been singularly unsuccessful for everyone except the Treasury, and the Statement now tells us of further tinkering to come. So we remain sceptical about the Government's understanding of the timing, the depth and the structure of the media revolution through which we are passing. But we on these Benches, we in the Labour Party, can say to the Government this afternoon: "So far, so good. Now trust the BBC to hold fast to all that is good. Tell everyone that the BBC is one of Britain's greatest gifts to the world. Stop digging it up by the roots all the time to see whether it is still growing and, for the brief period in which you remain in office, let it alone".
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I thank the Minister for reading the Statement made in another place. She mentioned that the White Paper is user friendly. I am not wholly sure that the Statement was user friendly. It was not friendly to her throat, and we are grateful to her for reading it in the painstaking way she did.
On these Benches we warmly welcome the fact that the Government have abandoned their anti-BBC attitudes of the 1980s. In the Statement which has just been made, they now recognise,
"that, in the BBC, the United Kingdom has an organisation which is a world leader".
Those words are music in the ears of many of us in your Lordships' House. But we note that the commitment in the Statement to continuing the licence funding carries the rather ominous qualification,
"at least for the time being".
I give the Minister warning that on these Benches we shall continue to be vigilant to make sure that there is no government backsliding on that aspect.
I also wish to pay tribute—perhaps not a totally unqualified tribute but a real one nevertheless—to the BBC leadership for facing up, in a rather self-indulgent organisation of prima donnas, to agonising and controversial changes in order to modernise its management practices. The BBC leadership deserve credit for the courage it has shown in that direction.
The Statement noted that a number of the proposals involve legislative changes. Do the Minister and the Government agree that the renewal of the BBC licence and charter should be the occasion for a comprehensive review of broadcasting policy and for a new and better broadcasting Act which would deal with the many anomalies left by the last Broadcasting Act, including such issues as cross-media ownership, the financing of Channel 4, the matter of listed sporting events and so on?
Finally, the Minister mentioned regulatory changes. We will want to study in detail what she proposes, but perhaps I may remind her that the purpose of broadcasting policy and broadcasting regulation is not to regulate in the interests of the broadcasters but to regulate in the interests of the viewers and listeners. Their interests ought to be paramount.

1297
Against that background—I put the matter diffidently and tentatively—is it not at least worth considering the case for a single office of public broadcasting with the task of independently ensuring that both the BBC and its various services and all the commercial broadcasting services, radio and television, of this country fulfil the public service obligations that they have in their various licences?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for the welcome which they generally gave to the White Paper. I seem to have a great many more than six questions to answer from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and thankfully only two from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
The first question of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, concerned the BBC education services, and of course education is one of the BBC's primary roles. The White Paper underlines that and focuses the BBC's attention in school programmes on the requirements of the national curriculum. It must consult the educational community on its output. But that is an important part of the BBC's role.
An equally important part is the BBC's research role, and it is vital that it takes the lead in research and training. Continuation of the licence fee will allow it to invest in the future. Why only five more years of the licence fee, asked the noble Lord, Lord Morris. There is no immediate prospect of a suitable replacement for the licence fee. However, with rapid developments in services and technology over the next few years, we want to keep the options open. We need to strike a balance between medium-term security and finding the best approach for the future. I noted the warning by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that he would be keeping his eagle eye on the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked me whether the Government had backtracked from their commitment to privatising transmission. The answer is no, we still see advantages in privatising the BBC's transmission services in whole or in part. It would allow more intensive use to be made of transmission infrastructure and the injection of private finance to pay for the introduction of digital broadcasting technology. But we are looking at it in the context of developments in technology and in markets and we expect to reach a decision by the end of the year.
Is not producer choice an expensive bureaucratic exercise? That was the gist of the noble Lord's next question. My answer is no, it has led to greater efficiency and produced savings which have been able to be ploughed back into programmes, as I said.
On the question of a public service broadcasting authority commissioning programmes from all broad-casters, there is considerable merit in having broadcasters with different sources of revenue. In the past few years there have been moves towards stronger links between broadcasting and programme-making and this will be lost if public service broadcasting was the responsibility of a separate body which did not make programmes itself.
1298
The morale of the staff, I think, is an understandable point, and I understand why BBC staff may have felt threatened by changes which were necessary to improve the BBC's efficiency and bring its management practices up to modern standards. However, I believe that staff are now seeing the benefit of those changes in the form of a stronger and more effective BBC.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, also asked how about revising the Broadcasting Act completely. Changes in technology and in broadcasting markets will require some changes to legislation. We are considering what amendments are necessary as part of our review of cross-media ownership. We will keep an open mind on what is necessary.
The final question from the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, was: has forcing the BBC to take independent productions reduced the quality of its programmes? Independent producers have been able to contribute new and innovative programmes that have enriched the diversity of the BBC's programming. We will continue to encourage the BBC, where possible, to extend its commissions from independent producers throughout the country.
Perhaps I may turn to the two points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. The noble Lord asked when the licence fee will be reviewed. It will be reviewed in good time to reach conclusions before the end of 1996. The noble Lord's other question was: is the ITC effective as a regulator? My reply to that is that the ITC has shown recently that it is not afraid to criticise commercial broadcasters. Its ultimate sanction is to revoke a broadcaster's licence. It is wholly appropriate that the ITC should regulate the BBC's commercial services in the future.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend has done the House very good service in repeating this enormously important Statement. But I would like to ask her whether the Government will go a little further and arrange for an early debate in this House on the many very important issues that arise. It would be a great pity if the House were to rise for the Summer Recess without the very considerable body of knowledge on broadcasting and its problems which is to be found in this House being given an opportunity for expression. I urge upon my noble friend that she and the usual channels, whatever inconvenience it might mean for their arrangements, will arrange for a full day before the House rises to be given to discussion of these immensely important issues.
I want to ask only one question of fact. It relates to the statement that the new Royal Charter will set out the responsibilities of the governors and the national councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Statement says:
"The board of governors will have a strategic oversight of the BBC's activities and management".
Will my noble friend tell the House what the phrase "strategic oversight" really means? Does it mean "authority"? Does it mean "control"? Does it mean the type of authority that a board of directors has over the affairs of a company? Or does it mean something less?

1299
And if it does mean something less, what exactly does it mean? "Strategic oversight" is an extraordinary expression. It suggests something less than full control and full responsibilities. But the practical point is that if the BBC does anything wrong, will the responsibility for that wrongdoing be accepted by members of the Board of Governors, or indeed responsibility for other aspects of the BBC itself? That is an extremely important aspect of the matter. I beg my noble friend to make that clear.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my first reply to my noble friend is that, of course, I will pass on his remarks to the usual channels. The question of a debate is, however, a matter for the usual channels; it is not in my gift. In answer to his second point, it is primarily for the governors to ensure that the BBC meets its objectives while keeping closely in touch with its audiences. The governors have set up a new public complaints unit independently to consider complaints. The BBC will also have to take account of the views of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission which, as I said, we propose to merge into a single body. The governors set objectives and monitor performance. They appoint the managers and they can dismiss them.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I can add to the answer that was given to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. In my seven years as vice-chairman we certainly exercised that authority to appoint and dismiss very senior managers. I can assure the noble Lord that we did just that.
I also warmly welcome, in broad terms, the White Paper and much that is in it. I especially welcome the point that is made on the need to ensure that the editorial independence of the BBC remains. That is of crucial importance.
As to the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the BBC, I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that much had already been done, in the face of the much misunderstood attacks on John Birt, under "producer choice", which an independent report found to be working very effectively. It has saved £100 million in 1993–94 for front line programmes and will probably save another £75 million over the next two years. Is the noble Baroness equally aware that a great deal of success has already been achieved with the international television service? There is no cross-subsidisation from the BBC licence fee or from taxation. It has been done by making the service commercially successful. Is the Minister also aware that it will almost certainly be more successful following the link up with the Pearson Report?
The Government had a need, I suppose, to put something about privatisation into the White Paper? I understand that. But can she recognise, and will she try to pass on to her right honourable friend, that privatising something—for example, transmission—is not really an answer to anything. In practice, it would provide very little in the way of extra competition but it could, and almost certainly would, add to cost; and it would mean a loss of control for the BBC. When the Government
1300
consider the option of privatisation of transmission— and I understand also the question of digital matters —I hope that they will think very carefully before privatising transmission as a whole.
Finally, in the light of today's excellent Select Committee report, I recognise that in regard to listed sporting events the Minister cannot make a statement today for very obvious reasons. The report only came out at 12 noon. But will she pass on to her right honourable friend that it is of crucial importance that major national listed sporting events should not be available only to those who can afford satellite television. It would be appalling if that were to apply just because they are able to pay hugely for that pleasure. The broadcasting of such events should be available to anybody who can take television, whether terrestrial or satellite. I hope, therefore, that it will be available. While the Minister cannot answer that question today, in principle she might be able to tell the House that the Government accept the proposition in the all-party Select Committee's report. The committee unanimously agreed that there should not be exclusivity and that these crucial national listed sporting events should not be exclusive to satellite television.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who of course has immense experience in this field, for bearing out some of the words in the Statement. I will, of course, pass on the remarks that the noble Lord made, which for obvious reasons I cannot answer, to my right honourable friend.
With regard to the cost of privatisation, it would bring an injection of private funds to allow very desirable developments in broadcasting technology. Other ways of achieving that investment may be possible and we shall consider the options with the BBC. There will be no cross-subsidisation for the BBCs commercial activities. We want the BBC to compete fairly and be seen to do so.
In relation to sport, about which I feel as strongly as anybody else, the Select Committee published its conclusions on the broadcasting of sporting events and my right honourable friend will look closely at what is recommended before reaching decisions on what further action may be necessary to ensure access to national sporting events. There are certain sporting events which have a special place in the life of this country. That was recognised in the Broadcasting Act 1990 which prevents certain events being broadcast solely on a "pay-per-view" basis. My right honourable friend believes that that safeguard remains necessary and he will consider the Select Committee's recommendations on whether or not those arrangements should be strengthened.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, on the whole I welcome the White Paper. However, it ducks the one question, also touched on by the Opposition Benches, as to whether the BBC should continue to be judge and jury of its own case. There is unhappiness about that. The Government have taken a long time to mature the White Paper; we have been expecting it for a year. No doubt they have been thinking and rethinking how they can form some sort of organisation which would not be as disadvantaged as it is at present. But no Minister dare

1301
in any way criticise the BBC. If they do so they will receive a fearful blistering, not only from the press, but also from the BBC. Sir Norman Tebbit, as he then was, was the last to experience it when he pointed out that the account of the Tripoli raid given by the BBC was rather different from that given by ITN. He asked the BBC why its description was so vividly different. The headline that night was, "Conservative Chairman attacks the BBC for its programmes". Since then he has been rather quiet on the issue.
We looked at a number of commitments and I am not sure that I agree with a number of noble Lords on the opposite Benches. The Statement says,
"A new agreement between the Government and the BBC would govern its operations; this would replace the present licence".
Which Minister will do that? Will it be someone from the DTI? It will be a much wider issue with mixed private and public enterprise. It is not easy to see how any politician could take on the responsibility. I hoped that the Government would set up a broadcasting commission and even consider an ombudsman. That may give members of the public some satisfaction and someone to whom they can write with their criticisms.
The BBC is governed by rules—we set them up in 1990—in relation to fairness, balance and impartiality. It is governed by its producers' rules also. I read those from cover to cover, all 297 pages of them. I wonder whether any producer ever reads them all? But they are not always obeyed. We have seen one or two glaring cases, such as the programme about the Kray twins. That was not in accordance with the wishes of the programme people or the standards that they wished to set. I am sorry that there has not yet been a solution in that area.
I have one other query. We are always being told that a restructuring of the BBC is taking place. I have no wish to disturb the staff of the BBC. They are loyal, good and conscientious in many ways. But when I ask for the total number I am told, "It has come down substantially". When I ask for specific figures I am told 25,000. That was said 25 years ago. It is said, "We intend to knock 5,000 off so that we can give good value for money and put more money into programmes". But the number remains static. Perhaps the Minister can inform the House of the present total.
I support the point that a debate would be desirable. The House holds a great deal of expertise and it would be nice, while the matter is fresh in our minds and not set in tablets of stone, for us to debate it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in response to my noble friend's point regarding judge and jury, the public will judge the BBC. It will have to publish clear objectives for its services in a statement of promises to its audiences. Changes to the nature of those services will be possible only if the BBC first consults its audiences on the proposed changes. It will also have to provide people with information about its services and its performance when it sends out reminders for the television licence. People will be given an address to which they can send comments about the services and programmes.
1302
My right honourable friend is responsible for the BBC and will take the lead in the review of its funding, in consultation with his colleagues. As regards bias on the part of the BBC, the new agreement will contain a clear obligation to treat contentious issues with due impartiality. It will be primarily for the BBC governors to ensure that BBC programmes comply with that obligation.
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me prior warning that he would ask about the number of members of staff at the BBC. I obtained a list and during 1993–94 the BBC as a whole shed over 1,500 members. The biggest reductions came in central overhead departments where the workforce dropped by 8 per cent. Productivity savings amounted to £100 million in 1993–94. Between 1989 and 1993 the BBC staff was reduced from 28,600 to 24,900 and there will be a further fall this year.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, the noble Baroness quite rightly referred to the high standard of work performed by the BBC Overseas Service. That was accomplished in spite of the fact that Conservative Governments often cut the grants. Can the Minister give an assurance that future grants will not be cut in a way which will affect the high standard of performance given by overseas services.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords. I am not sure that I understand to which grants the noble Lord is referring. The grant-in-aid remains, as does the World Service. We will do all we can to make: sure that that remains entirely viable.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although there is much in the Statement that I welcome, especially the merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, perhaps I can ask my noble friend about a matter which I feel is an anomaly. All the other broadcasting agencies in this country are governed by statute and are indirectly answerable to Parliament. The Statement says that a number of the BBC's activities in future will be covered by legislation. Why then do we have the anomaly that the main part of the BBC's work is to continue to be the subject of a Royal Charter, under which the BBC's responsibility to Parliament, if it exists at all, is extremely vague?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his question. Establishing the BBC by Royal Charter prevents it from being seen as a creature of Parliament. It therefore underlines the BBC's editorial independence. That was recognised when the BBC was first established and it remains a relevant consideration today.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many people, while welcoming the Statement and the White Paper, are relieved chat the BBC is not to be reorganised out of existence as some of us feared? In relation to the governors, does the noble Baroness realise that many people believe that the governors are still drawn from too narrow a section of

1303
society—the great, the good and the politically correct? Is there any proposal to try to widen the area from which the governors are recruited?
Can the noble Baroness give us further reassurance about the BBC World Service, which is admired throughout the world? What we need is an assurance that the service will not only be properly financed at its present level but, as and when it is felt to be right, will also be financed to expand. That is the kind of assurance we want.
Finally, the noble Baroness said that in future the commercial broadcasting services of the BBC will have to be licensed by the ITC and the Radio Authority. What criteria will be used for the licensing of commercial broadcasting services? Perhaps I may give an example. I should have thought that the BBC would want to build up its world television news network perhaps to rival CNN. Would the licensing preclude it from doing that? If it did, it would be altogether reprehensible. It would not be good for the BBC or for the people of this country.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the World Service is expanding. The BBC is opening a new bureau this year. With regard to the great and the good, what is most important is to ensure a balance of experience, including in the future for the BBC's commercial activities.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
4.51 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 31 [Use of vehicles under licences]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 191A:
Page 27, line 29, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I should like to know why the fine is set at the level established in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: A maximum fine of £2,500 at Level 4 is commonly provided in the 1968 Act for all those breaches of operator licensing rules for which the licence holder can be convicted. Examples are using an operating centre for vehicles authorised by a licence which is not specified in that licence, contravening any environmental conditions as to the use of an operating centre and using a goods vehicle without an operator's licence which comes into the category requiring such a licence under the 1968 Act. I think that your Lordships would agree that it is more serious, for example, to use a goods vehicle without a licence than to breach any maximum number of vehicles and trailers stipulated on a licence. I hope the noble Lord will agree, therefore, that a penalty for contravening the provisions in the Bill concerning the maximum number of vehicles and trailers to be used under a licence at any one time is appropriately set at Level 4. With that brief explanation, I hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am obliged to the Minister. That is a perfectly satisfactory explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 192:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Advertisement of lorry centre applications
.After subsection (5) of section 62 of the 1968 Act there shall be inserted—
"(5A) A person applying for an operator's licence shall also affix a notice outlining details of their application to the perimeter of the site in a position clearly visible to the public." ").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 197AA. The new clause would require a person applying for an operator's licence to advertise his proposals on the site that is relevant. As we shall discuss later on, operating a lorry centre may well have a highly deleterious effect on the area. It will certainly have a major impact on the area in some instances. Consequently, we take the view that people who live in the vicinity of a proposed operating centre should be informed of any proposals which may relate to it. At present it is required that proposals relating to this issue have to be advertised in a paper which circulates in the locality. That is not a wholly reliable way of ensuring that people affected by a proposal are aware of it. Notices on site to advertise proposals are frequently used in relation to planning applications. I cannot see any reason why they should not bear similar relevance to the issue we are considering now.
What they would certainly do is provide an alternative way of ensuring that residents received advance notice of proposals which related to the lorry operating centres. I cannot see that that would produce any great burden on industry—certainly not an undue burden, although one might say that a burden is anything which causes pen to be put to paper. It is a perfectly straightforward proposal. I hope the Minister will receive it in a positive way. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: I rise briefly to support the amendment, especially when one considers that the licence will last for an indefinite period. The people living in the locality must have the opportunity to know that someone will be operating very close to them. The advertisements one sees in the newspaper refer to the address where the proposed operations will start, but the residents may not realise how close the centre is unless they see the notice on the premises concerned.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Following our consultation last year on operator licensing, we considered carefully whether requiring site notices, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would be a good idea. We concluded that it was not necessary to do so to ensure that local people were fully informed. We were also concerned that such a requirement would be very difficult to enforce. Considerable enforcement effort would be required to ensure that the applicant had indeed put site notices in a visible place and kept them there for the requisite period. This would, for example,

1305
involve visiting the site at regular intervals to check that the notice was displayed. There could be disputes with applicants claiming that they had put up site notices and residents claiming that they had not, or applicants claiming that they had done their duty but vandals, or even the weather, had constantly torn the notices down.
I should like to reassure the Committee that local people in whose interests the site notice would be erected would have ample opportunity to learn about the use of an operating centre and to make representations if they wished. That will not change in a system of continuous licensing.
On the goods vehicle side, to which Amendment No. 192 relates, applications for an operator's licence or a major variation to an existing licence will still have to be advertised in local newspapers with details of proposed operating centres. I am not as unhappy about local newspaper advertising as I think the noble Lord is. My experience is that people tend to read the local newspaper from cover to cover in a way that they do not usually read the nationals. These advertisements are picked up, and picked up in the warmth and comfort of people's homes, in a way that perhaps they would not be picked up as people passed by a notice in their motor cars. Local people will therefore have a notice in the local newspapers. They will see it and they will have the right to complain at any time to a licensing authority about the use of the operating centre.
That is one of the points of continuous licensing. The licensing authority will take into account representations from people affected by the use of an operating centre in considering any disciplinary action against an operator at any time or in deciding whether or not to review an operating centre at the five-year point. That provision—that is to say, the operating centre being reviewed at the five-year point—will be widely publicised.
As regards public service vehicles and Amendment No. 197AA, if an applicant for an operator's licence is planning to use an existing operating centre, local residents will gain nothing from being informed that a new operator is going to use that site, so why should the applicant have to go to the trouble and expense of advertising? On the other hand, when a new operating centre is to be used, the owner must first obtain planning permission for such use. As part of that process a site notice has to be displayed and local residents may make their representations when the planning application is considered by the local authority. Were it to be mandatory to display site notices, traffic commissioners would have to find the resources to enforce such a provision. They could only do that either by employing additional resources with an inevitable increase in licensing fees, or in decreasing the enforcement effort spent on other activities. I am sure that none of us wants to see that happen.
We believe that the arrangements provided in the legislation are a far more effective means of informing concerned local residents than site notices. I should like to emphasise to the Committee that the Bill does not change the existing arrangements on notification. They
1306
are still there and the public will still be informed via the newspapers. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord makes up his mind on this matter, perhaps I may chip in here. We do not need to make a meal of this because it is a peripheral matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It is important.
Lord Tordoff: Two factors have occurred to me. First, the Minister's faith in people reading newspapers is somewhat exaggerated. It is true that local newspapers are better read than national newspapers and that is usually because the content is more interesting. A lot of these notices appear in the columns of the advertising part of the newspapers which very often are discarded while people get on with reading the local news.
The reply which the Minister gave on the second amendment that site notices are required under the planning consents, rather undermines his argument regarding the first part of his response that site notices are no good because they get washed away or people tear them down. The truth is that if someone sees a notice in their close locality they are tempted to read it. They will say, "I did not know that that was going to happen in my back yard". But as regards newspapers, people do not scour them although the professionals do. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that this matter is not unimportant and I accept that for the particular resident it is very important. I was merely saying that in relation to the whole nature of this Bill, it is a minor matter. However, it is an important matter and I wonder whether the Minister will go back to the drawing board again and think this matter through before we get to the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and add my impressions of what is happening. Here we are dealing with two different issues. We are, first, dealing with the vehicle operator's licence. Because they are now being issued for life, it is only as regards the first application that the notice would appear in the local press. At present, these notices appear in the local press every five years when the applicant has to apply for renewal of the licence. That is one aspect that is being abolished. Therefore the only opportunity which the local residents will get as regards the vehicle operator's licence is in the initial application, whereas since 1968 there has been the opportunity every five years.
Secondly, in relation to the site operating licence, the Minister is quite correct that for a new site the applicant has to get planning permission. In that context neighbour notification comes into play. The applicant has to notify the neighbours. I was a little disturbed when the Minister went on to say—rather dangerously, I thought—that it would not be of any great interest to the local residents if the site operator changed. He said

1307
that there would be no need for the local residents to know if one site operator gave up the site and a new one took it over. That is very important to local residents.
There is now developing not only in Scotland, but throughout the whole of Great Britain, a tendency for large haulage companies to move away from city and town centres into rural areas. My experience in the past five or six years has been that many large haulage companies have relocated in village areas where there are populations of between 1,000 and 2,000 and where the environment is very important indeed. In what we are discussing today, there is a dangerous tendency for the Government to come down on the side of saving the industry money at the expense of the public interest. I do not believe that the Minister has the balance right. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that it would not be a bad idea if the Minister took this matter away for further consideration.
I realise the problems involved in displaying public notices and so forth; but surely in the case of villages where large haulage concerns are now locating themselves, it is in the interest of village life and the community that we make sure that the villagers know exactly what the proposals are for the applications for the vehicle operator's licence and for the site operator's licence. I hope that the Minister will have a second look at this matter before we come to Report stage.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I believe that the noble Lord has contradicted himself. He seems to base his case for the erection of a site notice on companies relocating into rural areas. I am sure that he accepts that any relocation has to receive planning permission, and there is an adequacy of notice given through that route. Therefore, if one comes out of the town centre or wherever, local people have the opportunity to check and make their representations. You cannot obtain a licence and then put the company in some other place.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is it not right that sometimes planning permission is granted but not utilised for some considerable time? There could then be a considerable change in circumstances and much to the detriment of the people in the locality affected. I believe that situation ought to be protected in the way we have suggested. It would not be protected where there is a substantial gap in the period before the operational centre was constructed or became operational. That is a particular reason why this provision is sensible.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am pretty sure I am right in saying that currently planning permissions are granted for a very restricted period.
Lord Clinton-Davis: No.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me. I applied for planning permission two-and-a-half years ago. I got permission, but if I do not undertake the work, that permission expires in three
1308
years. Is that a substantial period or is it too long for the noble Lord? I am suggesting that there is an in-built protection.
Earl Attlee: As I understand it, if premises were used for a particular purpose prior to the passage of the Town and Country Planning Act, you can continue using them for that purpose. Some premises have never been subject to any planning permission.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: As we are in Committee, perhaps I may reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I apologise if I sounded contradictory. I do not know about planning permissions in England and Wales, but in Scotland a planning consent has to be acted upon within four years or the permission lapses. It is as simple as that.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said and that, when the initial planning application and neighbour notification come into play, the people in the village know exactly what is going on. The Minister took that a stage further and said that in his view, if the ownership of the site operator changes, there is no need for local people to know about that. I am saying that there is every need for the people in the locality to know if one owner gives up the site operator's licence and passes it to a completely different owner. The good relations built up between the site operator and the villagers could easily be destroyed by an incoming operator. That is the point that I hope that the Minister will take away and return to on Report.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be helpful if I reply at this point. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Ewing—I may not have made this clear originally—that my point about new operators was relevant to Amendment No. 197AA on public service vehicles. The problem that the noble Lord envisages about haulage firms relocating to the countryside relates to goods vehicle operator licences. If it is of any help to him, I can tell him that an application for a licence by a new operator or for major variations to existing licences would still be subject to full scrutiny. That includes adverts in local papers and would allow opportunities for objections and representations by interested parties. The same advertising protection that is built into the provisions for the first applicant, if I may put it that way, is also built in to the provisions governing any new or significant change in an operator's licence. Therefore, I do not think that the danger that the noble Lord envisages will arise.
I understand the points that other noble Lords have made. I have no desire to have a system in which people are not properly acquainted with what is going on. However, adding this requirement to the things that an operator has to do is simply adding another burden. It may not be a very big burden, but it is nevertheless a burden. We should proceed in that way only if the advocates of change can present cases showing that people did not know that something was happening next to them but that they would have known if notices had gone up. I maintain that the current system of notification in local papers seems to have proved sufficient. Unless I can be shown evidence to the

1309
contrary, I shall stick to my guns on that one. However, if noble Lords can bring me evidence either today or between now and Report, I am quite prepared to look at this again.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am very disappointed by that reply. We are not making a revolutionary proposal. The Minister is normally a reasonable man and I wish that, applying that reason and seeing the word "resist" at the top of his briefing, he had applied his mind to the matter and said, "This is not an issue that I ought to resist. This is perfectly reasonable".
I should like to deal with the arguments which the Minister has adduced. I wholly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that notices are not necessarily seen by people in the locality. This situation is comparable to what happens with regard to the notices that appear in relation to planning applications. Frankly, I would never have known about a certain planning application in the road in which I live if I had followed the Minister's advice and read all the advertisements in the Ham & High with great alacrity. I do not have the time to do that. I even have difficulty in finding the time to read all this material—let alone anything else. I am sure that the Minister will say, "That's obvious from the way in which you approach the subject". Therefore, from personal experience, I do not accept that one always knows about planning applications from the local press. The same argument applies here. The notices that appear on trees and elsewhere in the locality are of great importance. I have never observed notices about applications for planning permission to have been destroyed by the weather or vandals. Vandals prefer to vandalise cars—not notices advertising planning applications. The truth of the matter is that it is a shallow argument to say that advertising in local newspapers is sufficient.
I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lord Ewing about site operation changes. That is a powerful argument, as was, if I may say so, the argument that I adduced about the lapse of time, which can be substantial if it is three or four years. The new operator might be wholly undesirable, as could be the operation that he envisages. Therefore, it is something of a non-sequitur for the Minister to say that this is a burden that should not be applied to the industry.
I hope that the Minister will not insist on his argument about evidence. The evidence is adducible from experience of planning cases. I should have thought that it is a matter of common sense. More than that, however, the Minister asserts that the public have nothing to worry about in terms of environmental harm being caused. He says that the Government are not introducing anything that might upset people. But people do not believe that. In a way, it is a test of the Government's bona fides to assert that the Government are on the side of everybody and that they do not want to harm people's right to know such things.
I am very dissatisfied with the Minister's response. Unless the noble Lord can say categorically and without any caveats, "I shall take this back and look at it again with a view to making a positive response to this
1310
eminently common sense proposal"—a proposal which is supported not only on this side of the Committee and by the Liberal Democrats, but also by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, from the Cross Benches —I shall have to test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may come back again. Although I do not wish to prevent the noble Lord having a vote, I do not want to appear difficult about something that I do not think is a terrifically big issue. Although I accept that people living in a certain road who might miss a local advert but might see a notice might not like the idea on environmental grounds, some of the other grounds which the noble Lord mentioned, such as the operator not being a suitable person, would be picked up by the statutory authorities which have to be notified officially. The sieve is not so big, if I may put it that way, that such aspects will not be picked up by the authorities, which have to be notified in any case.
I have listened to the arguments and I appreciate that we insist that such notices are put up for planning applications. However, as I said, I should like to see some evidence before adding even a tiny additional burden, because to do so seems contradictory in a Bill that seeks to deregulate industry. If it is any help, however, and if it prevents us having coo great a disagreement at this stage, I shall take the amendment away and look seriously at whether this might be a sensible provision to add to the Bill, as it is added already into the planning system.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I appreciate what the Minister has said. He has moved a little in the right direction. However, this is not a complicated argument and I should have thought that the Minister's response would be, "I shall look favourably upon this". Anything short of that is not satisfactory. The Minister's whole argument has been against it—"I do not believe that it is right to do it. I shall want convincing evidence". How one adduces convincing evidence before the require-ment comes into operation, I do not know. This is an eminently sensible proposition. The response I am seeking from the Minister is not only, "I shall look at it again", but, "I shall look at it favourably again". Anything short of that, I fear, is unacceptable. Very well, then I must ask for the opinion of the Committee to be tested.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 192) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Airedale, L.

Carter, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carver, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Attlee, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cross, V.

Bottomley, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Broadbridge, L.

David, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

1311

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Marsh, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Eatwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Foot, L.

Molloy, L.

Geraint, L.

Monkswell, L.

Glenamara, L.

Monson, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

[Teller.]

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gregson, L.

Rea, L.

Grey, E.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Haskel, L.

Seear, B.

Howell, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kagan, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kintore, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Whaddon, L.

Longford, E.

White, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mar, C.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gainford, L.

Addison, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Aldington, L.

Geddes, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Annaly, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Arran, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harlech, L.

Astor, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Borthwick, L.

Huntly, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brentford, V.

Kimball, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Long, V.

Burnham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord

Carnock, L.

Chancellor.]

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mancroft, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chelmer, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Milverton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V.

Newall, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Norrie, L.

Denham, L.

Northesk, E.

Dilhorne, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orkney, E.

Downshire, M.

Pender, L.

Dundonald, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Flather, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

1312

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Swansea, L.

Savile, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Seccombe, B.

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Stewartby, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Strange, B.

Weatherill, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Wise, L.

[Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.28 p.m.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 192ZA:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
("Parish councils to be objectors under the 1968 Act
â—(1) Section 63 of the 1968 Act (which makes provision for objections to the grant of operators' licences) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6), "parish council" shall be added to the definition of "local authority".").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment introduced in the best spirit of subsidiarity. It wishes to give parish councils the right to be objectors under Section 63 of the 1968 Act. In logic that must be right, because when places are carrying out objectionable practices and noise nuisances, and causing environmental hazards and such things, rights to object are given to all sorts of local authorities. The parish council is the unit at the sharp end. It is the body to which local residents will complain. It is wrong if parish councils have no right of objection or appearance.
I hope that without making a great meal of the issue the Minister will think it right to allow parish councils to have these rights of objection, as have other units of local government. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: This is an extraordinary amendment. In putting it before the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, prayed in aid logic. He said, "So in logic it must be right". However, there is no logic in this amendment because in many areas of the country there are no parish councils. What is the point of including this provision, because it is totally meaningless? I hope that the noble Lord will reflect upon that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, rightly said that it is an example of the principle of subsidiarity; in other words, if a decision must be taken by a public body, it should be taken by the public body nearest to the person who might be adversely affected. In this case, the decision is whether to object.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that the provision is meaningless because in many parts of the country there is no parish. If there is no parish no question arises. However, in many parts of the country there is a parish and that is where this amendment bites and where it is entitled to respect. Certainly in those parts of the country where villages are widely separated the district

1313
council is very remote from the ordinary citizen but the parish council is in close touch. I believe that no reasonable objection can be taken to this amendment and that it has much to recommend it.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may add a slight gloss to what the noble and learned Lord said. I agree that parish councils are by far the most democratic part of the political establishment of this country. They are nearest to the people in their communities. For that reason alone it is right that they should be included.
However, as a result of the review of local government boundaries, we shall in many cases have district councils, which are significantly bigger. My own fair county of Somerset, for instance, will be divided into a smaller number of larger district council, unless we can stop that. In other words, the district council will be further away from the average citizen. In those cases, the district council is the obvious body via which objections can be lodged—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Does not the noble Lord mean parish councils?
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Yes, I mean parish councils. The parish council is more in touch with local opinion and it can bring detailed knowledge to the discussions. It can act as a channel for the objections of ordinary people. I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The provision does not apply to Scotland for the simple reason that Scotland does not have "parish" councils. The amendment gives parish councils the statutory right of objection. We are not giving parish councils—in Scotland we call them community councils—the right to make the decision as to whether an operator's licence is granted.
The Minister, from his Scottish experience and background, will be aware that community councils in Scotland already have the statutory right of objection in an application for liquor licences for public houses or restaurants. One of the few, if not the only, statutory rights that community councils in Scotland have is the right of objection to the grant of those liquor licences.
The Minister should look at the matter carefully because, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, as local authorities become larger—and that is the purpose of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill—the possibility of objection is removed from the local people. Surely it is important that in the vital issue of granting such licences, which will affect the quality of life in the area in which they are granted, the community councils in Scotland (or the parish councils in England and Wales) should have the statutory right of objection.
Perhaps I may give the Minister a good example of area interest coming into play. The Minister knows that for years throughout Scotland we have had considerable difficulty in the construction of sites for travelling people. An abiding memory from my experience as a constituency MP is of an application being made to Falkirk District Council, which had 36 members, to locate a site for travelling people. The vote to locate that site in one councillor's area was 35 in favour and only one against, the vote against being that of the particular
1314
councillor. I am not saying that the 35 people who were in favour of locating the site in that councillor's area were in favour of it; but they were mightily relieved that it was not being located in (heir area. The larger one makes such councils the more danger there is of that type of vested interest occurring. That is what makes the new clause so attractive.
I become worried when my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis says that the Minister is a kind and considerate man and so forth. I shall not say that that is where my worry stems from, but this is a good opportunity for the Minister to display his kindness and consideration and to take the matter away for examination.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My kindness and consideration for the amendment force me to suggest to the Committee that we should resist its addition to the Bill. To a certain extent, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, made my case for me in his example of travelling people, where everyone wants to help in theory but no one wants them in their back yard. He gave an example and certainly I could occupy the Committee with some of my experiences in the matter. They are along the same lines: "Not in my village. There is a very good site in the next village". But perhaps I had better not go down that road too much.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also made my case for me. He said that it was right that "district councils" should have the power, and then he corrected himself. I suspect that the score is now one all as regards my slip of the tongue the other day. At least, I am claiming that it is one all.
In considering operator licences we looked at this matter carefully; we considered whether parish councils ought to be added to the list of statutory objectors, which is the important point. The point is not merely that they will be told that an application has been received and that they can make their objections but that they will actually be added to the list of statutory objectors. The police, certain local authorities, the planning authority and the relevant trade unions are the statutory objectors and they have the right of appeal to the transport tribunal. Therefore, it is a serious step to add any group to the list of statutory objectors, and that includes parish councils. I would resist the proposition that parish councils should be added to the list of statutory objectors. But I want to make it clear to the Committee that they can—and I am sure that they do —play a role in the operator licensing system.
A parish council has a right of representation, in response to newspaper advertisements, on environmental grounds in respect of an application for a goods vehicle operator licence where it owns or occupies property in the vicinity of the operating centre concerned and the parish council's enjoyment of that property would be adversely affected.
Parish councils may subscribe to the fortnightly publication Applications and Decisions—known as As&Ds—which gives details about current applications. They may approach their county or district councils to seek to persuade them to exercise their right of objection.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does not the noble Lord think that it is rather cumbrous to allow the parish council to operate by approaching somebody else rather than operating directly?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that it is cumbersome. In many spheres of local government decisions are not made at parish council level. Although I am not an expert on parish councils in England, I suspect that very few decisions are made by parish councils. One way in which they represent the people who elect them is to speak to their local councillors at the next level and put collective pressure, as a parish council, on their councillors at county or district level to do whatever they want; in this case, to ask the council, which has a right of statutory objection, to lodge that objection.
I believe that protection exists. Parish councils have a role to play. As my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out, they do not exist everywhere in England but, where they do exist, I do not believe that it is right to add them to the list of statutory objectors.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to clarify his answer. I listened very carefully and tried to find the logic of what he said. I heard no rebuttal of the argument that parish councils are close to grass roots opinion and are very democratic. Therefore, almost prima facie, they should be statutory objectors.
If the noble Lord's argument is that he considers the list to be sufficiently long, at least I can see the logic of that. He says, "I do not want any more and it is rotten luck that you are at the back of the queue". But I heard no analysis of why parish councils should not be included. If we are concerned about representing opinion and democracy, listening to the arguments put forward and, indeed, listening to the reply of the Minister, I thought that parish councils should be much higher up the list than some of those which are actually on the list. Can he convince us of the position that he has adopted?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not subscribe to the view that one level of government is any more or less democratic than another. I suspect that in some areas parish councillors are more or less unelected with no contest. It is difficult to describe them as democratic. I realise that in your Lordships' House that is not a terribly convincing argument, but I have not been asked to add your Lordships' House to the list of statutory objectors. County and district councils are democratic-ally elected and in many cases seats on those councils will be contested. Therefore, I cannot agree with the view that there is a hierarchy of democracy in these matters and that parish councils are more democratic than other councils above them.
Indeed, I should like to look carefully at what powers parish councils have because this amendment would give a power of statutory objection which would put them on all-fours with, for example, planning authorities, the police and relevant trade unions. I suggest that that may be a step too far. I have explained to your Lordships how parish councils at present and in
1316
the future may use their influence. They can make representations or they can persuade their local authority to exercise its statutory power of objection.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may seek some clarification from the Minister. I rather gather from what he said that parish councils have the opportunity to object, even though they are not statutory objectors. He said that they can find out what is going on from announcements in the newspapers and that, just as any citizen can, they can put forward objections.
The idea that parish councillors are not elected is not a road that we should like to go down.
Noble Lords: Some are not.
Lord Monkswell: Whether they are elected uncontested is another matter. That happens in relation to district and county councils. People may be elected unopposed. Therefore, that is not a valid reason for objecting to them and for suggesting that they are less democratic than any other part of local government.
But we should try to avoid conflict. There is nothing more liable to lead to conflict than the feeling that a decision has been made over the heads of people and without consultation. This amendment provides us with a mechanism to resolve that conflict because if the parish councils are added to the list of statutory objectors then the presumption that I make is that they will be consulted officially on any proposals. They will be given notice of the proposals and will be asked for their objections to them. If they are not statutory objectors, nobody will write to them. They must find out for themselves. The problem is that if the parish councillors have not read the relevant newspapers decisions may be made without their views being sought and people will then say that they were not told about it. That creates problems. I believe that to add parish councils to the list of statutory objectors would help to avoid that conflict.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify something that he said earlier. I believe that he said that parish councils have a right to object in relation to environmental planning matters. Did he say that they can object if their property is affected? Of course, one would wish it to go further than that. One would wish that to relate to the citizens of the parish.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Rather than saying that I think I said what the noble Lord thinks I said, I shall repeat what I said. I am talking about statutory representers, rather than statutory objectors—and that may answer the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Statutory objectors can make objections with regard to the fitness of an operator, the maintenance of his vehicles, past business activities and so on, and in environmental respects. They have a right of appeal to the transport tribunal.
Statutory representers can make representations on environmental matters but they do not have a right of appeal to the tribunal. Therefore, there are two categories which can have an audience before the authorities on such matters.

1317
A parish council could have a right to representation and quite clearly, the chances are that some members of the parish council would own or occupy property in the vicinity of the operating centre. I am advised quite clearly that they could have a right to statutory representation but not to statutory objection. I believe that that is the difference between us on this matter.
Lord Howell: The Minister made an extremely disappointing reply to what is an important debate. As I listened to him, I wondered whether he believes that parish councillors have a role to do anything at all in this land. I believe that we need to encourage people more and more to take an interest in such affairs; in other words, to participate, to take decisions and to make representations. But here we have the Minister telling us that parish councils ought not to have that right, partly because, according to him, many of them are returned unopposed and there are no elections. It seems to me that the logic of that assumption is that, if you do not give parish councils sensible duties to perform and encourage them to do so, you are likely to have more unopposed elections but less likely to find people to serve on such councils.
The Minister's reply raises the fundamental question as to what the Government believe parish councils exist to do. Surely they exist to make representations about serious nuisances. That is what we are talking about; we are talking about nuisances of one sort or another and the right to be objectors. The Minister said that such councils can make representations through the district council. That is hardly a principle which we ought to apply generally in local government—that one tier of local government should pursue the objections about which its constituents feel strongly by asking another tier of local government to register such objections. But that is what the Minister seems to be saying.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I find the argument very difficult. I invite the noble Lord to remember the number of times when he was in another place that constituents came to him and he wrote letters which were clearly the responsibility of the county council or the district council. He did not send his constituents away: he actually made representations on their behalf to that other authority. I am afraid to say that my idea is not novel.
Lord Howell: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, earlier, the Minister was good enough to concede a point and say that the score was one all. In my other capacity, I was about to wave a yellow card at the Minister. However, in view of the answer that he has just given—which merits two yellow cards—I believe that he should be sent off, just as happens in the World Cup. However, I do not wish to send the Minister off the field because we want to keep him in play; but we also want to keep parish councils in play.
I do not believe that there is any analogy here with the duties of Members of Parliament. Indeed, those of us who have been MPs know perfectly well that this issue is at the nub of many of our problems. But, as the Minister has tempted me down that road, I should like to point out to him that in the City of Birmingham we
1318
have considered most carefully how we could create parish councils even in such a large city. We have done so for the simple reason that we are anxious to stop the feelings of frustration that so many people have when they put forward compkunts. As a compromise in Birmingham, we have established neighbourhood councils and neighbourhood centres. They are working very well. In fact, they take much of the load off the shoulders of other elected representatives. That is the important point that has emerged from our debate.
We are not talking about trivial nuisances, with people experiencing them on the ground and living next to them; we are talking about substantial problems. I took some encouragement from a phrase used by the Minister in part of his reply. He said that he would look carefully at the powers of such councils-—which means, of course, that he is not quite certain what their powers are. I can well understand that and I make no complaint.
However, as I do not wish to divide the Committee on the matter, I should like to take the Minister a little further down that road. I wonder whether I can persuade him to look again at the matter in the hope that he may be persuaded that parish councils have an important role to play in matters which directly affect their parishioners. I am sorry to see the Minister shaking his head. But as I do not wish to divide the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, while giving notice that we shall return to the subject at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Determination of applications for licences]:
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 192ZB:
Page 28, line 1, leave out ("must") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 192D are purely drafting amendments. I hope that the Minister will find them helpful to his purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The provisions of new Section 64(1) to (5) are drafted in the way they are in order to spell out more explicitly the approach that must be taken in practice by the licensing authorities when they consider applications for operator licences. The process is that the licensing authority should ask himself whether the requirements set out in subsection (3), and if he thinks fit subsection (4), would be met were he to grant a licence in the terms applied for. If he decides not, the next stage is to ask himself whether they would be met were he to grant a licence in different terms; for example, authorising fewer vehicles or with the imposition of certain conditions. If he decides that the requirements would not be met were he to grant the licence in any terms, he must refuse the application outright.
That is set out clearly in subsection (9) of new Section 64 to the 1968 Act which I shall read to the Committee so as to ensure that we are all quite clear about it. It reads:
"If the licensing authority determines that any of the requirements that he has taken into consideration in accordance with subsection (1) of this section are not satisfied, he shall refuse the application, but in any other case he shall, subject to section 69B and 89(2) of this act, grant the application".

1319
The drafting of new Section 64 takes that into account. The requirements that the licensing authority has to consider are previous convictions and business activities related to goods vehicles, the arrangements for securing that vehicles are maintained in a fit and serviceable condition and are not overloaded, and the availability, suitability and capacity of the operating centre or centres proposed. In considering those matters he must have regard to any duly made objections and may take into account any undertakings given by the applicant.
The phraseology which the amendments seek to change is entirely appropriate when dealing with requirements that have to be satisfied. I am advised that "must" is appropriate for the setting out of requirements. I hope that the Committee will accept that the clause as drafted achieves the intended result and that "must" is the appropriate word, not "shall".
Lord Howell: In view of the Minister's explanation, which I find to be satisfactory and understandable, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 28, line 7, at end insert:
("(2A) The licensing authority shall in all cases ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that information given by the applicant in regard to any of the matters set out in subsection (2) above is correct, before issuing an operator's licence.").
The noble Lord said: At present when applying for an operator's licence the applicant is asked for details of any criminal convictions and of his or her financial history. For example, applicants are asked whether they have ever been made bankrupt. However, the information supplied by the applicant is, as I understand it—though I stand to be corrected on the point—not further investigated by the licensing authorities. In fact, it could be done, though it is not, through the Police National Computer or the Register of Disqualified Directors held at Companies House. The amendment would ensure that all such information which the applicant advances in connection with subsection (2) (a) and (b) is correct. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Lord explained, the amendment would require licensing authorities to check all information given on every application to deal with past business activities and convictions. We are not persuaded that such a requirement would add to the safeguards already in the system to ensure that such information is correct. Indeed, a statutory requirement to check would place an extra burden on staff and could lead to delay and extra costs for operators.
Licensing authorities will usually accept the information given on application forms unless they have reason to doubt it. Licensing authorities have the support of staff with long experience and a good internal intelligence system through past records. This enables them to follow up suspicions and to check known past offenders. The Committee will appreciate that some operators go in and out of business and change partners and operating names. Staff in the traffic areas know the firms well and keep records on them. They also keep
1320
records of previous applications and convictions. In cases where this seems necessary, a check with criminal records or local police would be made.
In addition, of course—we have been discussing this —licensing authorities are obliged in law to have particular regard to statutory objections to the application for a licence, including objections made on the grounds of applicants' past business activities and convictions. People with statutory objector status are the police, local authorities, planning authorities, and trade unions or associations whose members consist of or include licensed operators and their employees. Objections can thus be a good source of information.
As I am sure the Committee appreciates, statutory objectors are drawn from quite a wide circle of bodies, although perhaps it is not as wide as some Members of the Committee would have wished. A requirement to make checks would therefore not in practice add to the safeguards that are already there as regards the experience of the staff in the licensing authority and as regards the information—or potential information, if there is a problem—that could be provided by the statutory objectors. I should at this stage reassure the Committee and the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment that there are sanctions against those who give false information. In such cases a licensing authority has power to revoke, suspend or reduce the scope of a licence. I suggest this is sufficient deterrent and safeguard.
I hope that, with that explanation of how the system works at the moment to ensure that the information on the form is correct, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, which I believe would be quite difficult, and perhaps time consuming, to implement.
6 p.m.
Lord Peston: Will the Minister clarify his reply? Subsection (2) of Clause 33 on page 28 of the Bill is clear. It states that the applicant must not by reason of the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) be, "unfit to hold an operator's licence".
The Minister then described what I take to be what happens in practice, and what he would expect to happen in practice in order that the licensing authority could somehow act according to the existing provisions. I understood the Minister's pragmatic view as regards what he felt would happen in practice, and I cannot believe that he is mistaken, but Amendment No. 192A deals with a further matter. The matter concerns not the operator but the licensing authority. If it turned out subsequently that someone was granted an operator's licence who should not have been granted it by reason of the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), the purpose of this amendment in the name of my noble friends is to question the licensing authority on why it did not discover that. That seems to me the point of the matter. The amendment in a sense tells the licensing authority that it has a duty that we wish to put in statute. I did not hear an answer on that point from the Minister. I fully understand the points the Minister made as regards not including measures that are impracticable. However, in the case I am discussing, if it turned out

1321
that a person had a criminal conviction and then committed another act of a criminal nature which was perhaps damaging to a third party —we know that happens; happily not as frequently as one fears, but it happens—I should like it to be possible to ask the licensing authority why that person's application was allowed through. Without an amendment of this kind, I cannot see that I should have any locus to ask the licensing authority why it let a particular application through. I am seeking clarification from the Minister. I well understood his argument, which I did not find unconvincing, but I am not sure that it dealt with quite the point in the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am having some difficulty in understanding the question the noble Lord asked of me. However, no doubt if I am not answering the right question, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will tell me. The amendment which is tabled deals with the application at the time it is made. I have suggested that there are ways in which the licensing authority gains the information which could lead it—I am not saying this will happen 100 per cent. of the time—to believe that something on the application form is not correct. The authority's background and the knowledge of its staff and the information that is provided by statutory objectors, and indeed information from people making representations, may lead the authority to reach that conclusion. I believe I have said that powers are given to the licensing authority to act against someone who fills in a form falsely.
However, I believe the noble Lord was going beyond the terms of the amendment when he asked me what would happen if a new fact came to light after the licence had been granted. He asked me what would happen if no one had picked up that fact but after the licence had been granted suddenly the authority discovered that one of the entries was false and, had it been known, the authority would have reached a different conclusion. Having almost posed the question, I suppose I had better answer it.
Lord Peston: I think we have nearly reached the stage of asking the question. We can then deal with the answer. I shall explain what I have in mind. Let us assume that an operator committed another action which turned out to be illegal or criminal but, in the course of that, the authority discovers that the person had a conviction and therefore should never have been given an operator's licence in the first place. Therefore, my objection is not against the operator but rather against the licensing authority. I would want to ask why the licensing authority did not find that out in the first place. This is a matter of how much pressure we put on the licensing authority. I repeat the noble Lord's answer. In practical terms the authority will be trying to do the best it can. However, this amendment seeks to place that on a statutory basis so that one could then say to the authority, "You have failed in your statutory duty". That is my point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This, of course, is a problem with all forms that are filled in whether in relation to this matter or in relation to many other
1322
matters. The obligation to be truthful is on the person who is filling in the form. If that person is found not to be truthful, punishments or withdrawals or whatever will follow. I think I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I hope I can answer him. I believe it: would certainly make for an extremely cumbersome system if we imposed this measure on the licensing authority, because it would then have to check every single thing on every application form. That would be an exhaustive process.
I have suggested that in the trawl through its own records, through its own knowledge and through the information given by the statutory objectors, in most cases—I freely concede that I cannot guarantee that this would happen in all cases, but that might not occur even if this measure were imposed on the authority—the authority would pick up anything that was false. If, after the licence is granted —this is an important point—new facts come to light which would mean that the licence should not have been issued, the authority has the power to revoke it, suspend it, or reduce its scope. I hope I have persuaded the Committee that the existing powers give the licensing authority enough power to make sure that someone cannot get away with providing false information on a form, obtaining a licence, and then, so to speak, going on merrily even if the licensing authority finds out that something is not correct.
Lord Monkswell: I mentioned earlier this afternoon the change in circumstances between 1968 and now. The Minister has effectively described a regime that might have been applicable 20 or 30 years ago. But now, with the advent of computerised records—the police national computer has been mentioned, and no doubt there is a computer record of disqualified directors—the inquiries we are discussing should be relatively easy to make. They were obviously not even possible some years ago. I pick up the words "reasonably practicable" from the amendment. We are not saying that the authority should go to unreasonably impractical steps to check an applicant, but, where facilities now exist or where they could become available in a few years' time with the advent of further new technology and computerisation, the authorities should make those checks.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not quite as convinced as my noble friend Lord Peston as regards the response of the Minister. However, I do not want that to be construed as a major split in the Labour Party on this matter! My noble friend quite rightly says that it is his Bill. I should never have said any such thing.
It is my understanding that those who are engaged in determining whether an application should be granted rely on an admixture of hearsay, inference, guesswork and even personal prejudice or the prejudice of people around them. My noble friend Lord Monkswell is right. In this day and age it is not possible to say that the tests we have suggested are impossible or too onerous. I do not know the number of taxi drivers in the metropolitan area, but each of those applications is rigorously tested. Yet a heavy goods vehicle operator bears enormous responsibility for the goods that he carries, for safety and the environment. His obligations are substantial.

1323
Therefore, I cannot understand why a distinction should be drawn in the rigour which is quite rightly applied to taxi drivers—and perhaps even to minicab drivers, when we hear the results of the Government's investigations into that element in the London area—and goods vehicle operators. Perhaps the Minister would like to make an observation on that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would love to make an observation about it, but the position regarding taxis is not immediately known to me. I would certainly have to look at that. However, I do not believe that it necessarily reads over to other applications, including the one that we are dealing with.
In the absence of any evidence that there is a real problem here and that a lot of people have slipped through the net and obtained licences who would not have obtained them if such a statutory obligation had been placed on the licensing authority, I believe that the various checks and balances I have suggested are more than sufficient.
I remind the Committee that the Bill is an attempt to deregulate and find a balance. I do not think that placing more regulations on the authority is a sensible way to go about the matter unless a very convincing argument can be made that the authority needs this additional regulation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister says that he is not in a position to respond to the point that I made about taxi drivers and the comparable obligations of operators of heavy goods vehicles. I believe that it is a highly germane point to make.
I believe that our proposal would remove some of the obligations that fall upon the licensing authority, relying as it does on a sense of the application that it is required to consider. I hope that the Minister will say that he will look at the matter again. I do not even ask him to say that he will look at it favourably, but merely that he will consider it. A nod of his head would be sufficient. He has done more than that. He has waved in an approving way, indicating that he will look at the matter. I ask no more than that. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 192B:
Page 28, line 8, leave out ("It must be possible") and insert ("In order to enable the licensing authority").
The noble Lord said: How I envy my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. He looks at the Minister and gets a nod of the head whereas all I get is a shake of the head. I agree that I offered the Minister a yellow card. It is all very sad. Perhaps I may do better mis time.
In moving Amendment No. 192B I shall speak also to Amendment No. 192C. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the drafting of subsection (3) of the new Section 64 inserted by the Bill into the 1968 Act. That new section deals with the manner in which applications for licences are to be determined. Subsection (3) sets out a number of preconditions which appear to be intended to enable the powers of the licensing authority to be exercised effectively. The problem is that something is amiss with the drafting of
1324
the subsection so that grammatically it does not appear to make sense. The two amendments are designed to be helpful to the Government and to set out what the subsection is designed to achieve. I hope that that is the case.
Taken together, the amendments place a duty on the operator to ensure that the preconditions listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) are secured in order that the licensing authority's powers to issue a licence are fully effective. The preconditions set out in the subsection are: that there are satisfactory arrangements for securing that the vehicles are not overloaded, that there are satisfactory facilities for vehicle maintenance, that at least one place in the area of the licensing authority is specified as an operating centre and is available and suitable for such use; and that the capacity of an operating centre is sufficient for all the vehicles covered by the licence. Those preconditions are left unchanged by the amendment and, I imagine, will have the support of all Members of the Committee.
As I said, the amendments are designed to secure a response from the Minister as to whether the wording is right and achieves his purpose. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is similar to our debate on Amendments Nos. 192ZB and 192D when I explained the reasoning behind the drafting of the new subsections (1) to (5) of Section 64. These provisions reflect a process which the licensing authority must follow when considering applications for licences. In particular they reflect the questions it must ask itself in order to be satisfied that the operator will fulfil the requirements of new Section 64. The terms "it must be possible" and "apply" reflect that process.
In the earlier debate I convinced the noble Lord that the phraseology that we had inserted in the Bill was appropriate. I hope that I may be able to do so in this case. It is always difficult when we consider the best words to be used rather than arguing about what is intended. We are in total agreement about the intention. I hope that the noble Lord can accept from me that the phraseology we have used in this part of the Bill is appropriate to the application process that the licensing authority will go through as it goes step by step through the provisions in the Bill—or the Act when it becomes an Act—in order to be satisfied that it should grant an application. We believe that the phraseology which our advisers have inserted is appropriate and that the changes which the noble Lord suggests are not needed.
I hope that without showing me a yellow card the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howell: I am always delighted when a Minister of the Crown convinces himself that he is right. These days that is a rare experience. However, since the Minister, having thought about the matter, has convinced himself that he is right, I leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 192C and 192D not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 192E:
Page 29, line 47, at end insert:
("(3A) The authority may in addition impose requirements relating to maximum noise levels, whether from motor vehicles or otherwise from the operator's activities, and the period within which such noise level is permissible.")
The noble Lord said: In this case we are anxious to provide a power for the licensing authority to take into account noise levels and to impose conditions as to noise when it issues licences for an operating centre.
The new Section 64A which is inserted into the 1968 Act sets out the duty of the licensing authority to issue a licence where certain stipulated conditions are met and where the authority does not believe that remedial action is required to meet any such condition. Under subsection (3) the authority is able to vary the terms on which the licence is issued from those on which it was applied for in a number of respects. The powers are designed to increase or decrease the number of motor vehicles covered by the licence, to apply the licence to different vehicles, and to make variations concerning the weight of vehicles, trailers or the numbers of operating centres covered by the licence.
We broadly welcome the powers. However, there is no provision for the licensing authority to insert conditions about maximum noise levels. The amendment therefore seeks to correct that situation by putting into the hands of the authority powers to stipulate maximum noise levels from motor vehicles or otherwise from the operator's activities; for example, from the operating centre; and to make provision to stipulate the periods within which the maximum noise levels are permissible. Those could vary considerably. The amendment ascertains the Government's attitude to placing noise control powers in the licence.
There are a number of controls over noise in local authority traffic management systems. There are controls over the physical condition of vehicles. One aspect is the control of unacceptable noise from exhausts, and so on. However, we seek to emphasise that the power to pinpoint the precise amount and nature of noise which can flow from the grant of a licence for an operating centre with vehicles moving in and out, could give the licensing authority a very useful means of dealing with that form of environmental pollution at source rather than to rely on the remedial measures ' applied later by other means. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sure that we all have a great deal of sympathy with the subject of the amendment. I am sure that we all agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we reduce the noise level in our society commensurate with the fact that we all need the vehicles, aeroplanes, and so on, which move around. However, I hope that I shall be able to persuade him that sufficient powers exist without adding this responsibility to the other responsibilities of the licensing authorities.
As the noble Lord indicated, local authorities already have powers to deal with noise nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 including noise from the use of premises. I suggest that they are in a much better position than licensing authorities to exercise such powers. The noise of vehicles in use on the road is regulated nationally under construction and use regulations. If licensing authorities were given the
1326
power to impose noise levels on vehicles which, though licensed locally, could be used nationwide, that would be to superimpose their individual views on stipulations made for general application.
I hope that the Committee will agree that for all our licensing authorities to become involved in settling requirements as to noise levels would be unnecessary, inappropriate and confusing. The problem of noise in vehicles is best left to the authorities and to the regulations which already exist to deal with the matter nationwide.
It is a serious problem. Perhaps I may say to the Committee that the perceived noise level of individual vehicles has been reduced by half in the past few years; and that further reductions in noise levels will be introduced in 1996 together with new controls on noise from air brakes, controls on the sale of replacement silencers and other measures. Research is being undertaken on body rattle from heavy lorries, and the European Union is considering such matters as control on tyre noise. Of course, improved road surfaces have helped to reduce the noise created by vehicles moving along them.
I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord that we are very serious about reducing noise as much as technology can help us to do so. However, perhaps asking the licensing authority to become involved in this specific matter is asking it to take on an additional responsibility which is better done by other people to national standards.
Lord Tordoff: The Minister has not addressed the second part of the amendment which refers to, "otherwise from the operator's activities". The period within which such noise level is permissible is also an important part of the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: leaving aside noise level, in fact the licensing authority can put conditions on the use of the site which may include the hours of the day during which the site can be used. With egard to the level of noise, if a site will be too noisy in the view of the licensing authority, I suspect that it then has to consider not giving the licence. But if a licence has been granted, and there is a noise nuisance, then the local authority has the power to deal with it, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as I said in my original response. That refers not only to noise from the lorries but also from the premises. Noise from the premises is dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall consider what the Minister said. I am not wholly persuaded, for reasons to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred. However, I should like to take guidance on what the Minister said from those with experience of these matters, and may wish to come back to the issue later. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Conditions for securing road safety]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 192F:
Page 30, line 43, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: If it is convenient to the Committee, I speak also to Amendment No. 192G.
The amendment seeks to remove restrictions relating to the circumstances in which conditions might apply which have been attached to the licence concerning road safety. The new Section 64B of the 1968 Act sets out the powers of the licensing authority to attach conditions for securing road safety. In essence, those amount to this. The licensing authority is in a position to attach such conditions as it thinks fit for preventing vehicles covered by the licence from causing danger to the public. It can do so, first, at any point where those vehicles first join a public road on their way from the operating centre to another destination, or where they leave a public road to reach such a centre; and, secondly, on any road other than a public road along which vehicles are driven between points and the operating centre.
Those stipulations appear to be somewhat over-precise. It is suggested that there is no obvious reason why conditions required for road safety—for example, covering the condition of vehicles, maintenance, suitability for the purpose for which it is licensed, and so on—should not apply at any point where the vehicle is in motion.
I ask the Minister, first, to clarify whether the definitions used in fact mean that a vehicle could be in motion at any point outside an operating centre and not covered by the licensed conditions. Secondly, if, as appears to be the situation, a vehicle while moving within an operating centre is outside the licensing conditions, why should that be so? On that point, the vehicle could well be manoeuvring or performing lifting or dumping operations within an operating centre in a way in which safety and general roadworthiness may be relevant to the possible danger of those operations. So it would seem to be illogical that a vehicle is perhaps covered as to licence conditions up to the moment it enters an operating centre, but that, when that has happened and the vehicle comes to rest in the centre, that situation no longer obtains. I ask the Minister to clarify the drafting and explain why any possible gaps may be justified. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to explain to the noble Lord and to the Committee what is meant by the clause and add to that why I do not think the noble Lord's amendment is necessary. At present, if a licensing authority judges an operating centre to be unsuitable for reasons which are not environmental, he must refuse to authorise its use, even in circumstances where some restriction as to the way it is used might render it suitable. A typical example is where it would be unsafe for vehicles to turn in or approach from a particular direction when entering or leaving an operating centre, or where vehicles would have to enter or leave backwards.
Subsection (1) of the new Section 64B provides that a licensing authority may attach to any licence which he grants or varies such conditions as he thinks appropriate
1328
for preventing danger to the public: at any point where vehicles join or leave a public road on their way to or from an operating centre; and on any road, other than a public road, along which such vehicles are driven between such a point and the operating centre.
The licensing authority therefore has responsibility for safety considerations in respect of the restricted locality of the operating centre. The highway authority has a road safety locus on public roads and can place restrictions on the use of a public road for road safety reasons. This amendment would serve to duplicate that responsibility, and I believe it is unnecessary, therefore.
What the clause does is to give the responsibility to the licensing authority clearly inside the operating centre and at the point where it joins the public highway. Once a vehicle is on the public highway, the responsibility is that of the highway authority and it has sufficient powers to place restrictions on the use of the road for road safety reasons. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will be satisfied that all eventualities are covered either by the licensing authority or by the highway authority.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Without prejudice, I think that that is not an unreasonable response. I should like to think about what the Minister said. If the provision is duplicatory, then of course there is no purpose in it. I am not absolutely convinced that that is right and I should like to think further about it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 192G not moved.]
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 192H:
Page 31, line 12, leave out ("special").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary because of the extraordinary use of the word "special" in Clause 34 on page 31, line 12. We wish to leave it out. I hope that the Minister can satisfy us as to why special consideration should apply in this case to one set of people when it does not seem to apply to others.
Under the new Section 64B of the 1968 Act, a system is to be set up whereby, when the licensing authority attaches road safety conditions, varies some of those conditions or imposes new restrictions, the authority shall give the applicant or licence holder an opportunity to make representations. No one objects to that, but those representations are to cover the effects on the operator's business as opposed to intrinsic rights or wrongs of the road safety conditions. Subsection (4) requires the licensing authority to give:
"special consideration to any representations made",
by the operator. My amendment asks why. There is no objection to operators having every opportunity to make representations, the point is simply that the Bill requires special consideration by the licensing authority in respect of those representations.
It seems to me that that must mean that the operator's representations are to be given greater weight than those made by local residents, amenity groups or other representatives of the community. Surely the job of the licensing authority is to strike and maintain a proper balance between possible objections of local people and the need to secure the granting of sufficient licences to

1329
enable activities to proceed and to avoid improperly withholding licences where conditions have not been met.
I move the amendment, therefore, in order to give the Minister the opportunity to explain why there has to be special consideration for operators as opposed to other interested parties. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the word "special" is not in the Bill for any reason which ought to cause him suspicion. The inclusion of the term "special consideration" merely mirrors that already provided in the 1968 Act with regard to the imposition of environmental conditions on an operator's licence. It is important that when placing road safety conditions on an operator's licence the licensing authority gives special consideration to the views of the operator himself if indeed he chooses to make representations against those conditions. The operator may have a lot to lose in terms of the running of his business and it is right that his representations are given special consideration. This does not mean, however, that objectors should be given anything other than proper consideration. But, far more importantly, it does not mean that a licensing authority should let consideration of the operator's business override its views on potential danger to the public.
I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will be reasonably satisfied and be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howell: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It is reasonably acceptable to me. I was not overwhelmingly convinced by the use of the word "special" and the need for it in the Bill, but, in view of the explanation we have heard, I am not sufficiently agitated to divide the Committee on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Duration of licences and grant of interim licences]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 31, line 28, after ("to") insert ("the provisions of subsection (2A) below,").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 193, we discuss also Amendment No. 194. The aim of both these amendments is to enable goods vehicle operator licences to be revoked on environmental grounds. Chapter III deregulates the licensing system for operators of goods vehicles and a key element is the system of continuous licensing as against the five-year period which operates up to the present time.
The Government say—and the Minister has said this over and over again, but the mere fact that he repeats it does not mean that it is accurate—that safeguards with respect to safety in the environment will unquestionably be maintained. The primary purpose of the amendments is to probe that commitment. Lorry operating centres cause significant local environmental problems. That is not invariably the case, but many of them do. These will
1330
include noise, pollution and vibration, and a whole series of environmental problems arises because of the presence of goods vehicles in a neighbourhood. One only has to have represented an inner London area to know that that is the case. It means that there is considerable oppression caused to local residents. It is not invariably the case, but it does happen. I note that for the first time this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, nods his head in approbation of what I am saying. May it not be for the last time this evening.
The environmental impact of a centre can vary over time as a result of the intensification of its use. There can be alterations in operating patterns; different types of goods can be handled; different types of vehicles can be used. All those variations will change the circumstances under which the initial operating application was granted.
Therefore, we say that it is critical that the introduction of continuous licensing does not prejudice the environmental protection of which I have spoken. Under this amendment the licensing authority could terminate a licence in response to complaints about the environmental impact of a centre. On the assumption that Ministers may not support the proposal, I hope that in their opposition—I suppose I am anticipating the obvious—they will explain how they envisage that the continuous environmental controls could be achieved in the light of the new system that is being introduced under this Bill.
There is another, more general concern. The removal of the five-yearly review of an operator's licence could leave the system devoid of any mechanism for adequate control or monitoring. Who will enforce compliance with licensing conditions in the absence of a regular review procedure? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As in a number of these mini-debates, I very much share the noble Lord's concern to ensure that those who live in the vicinity of a goods vehicle operating centre do not suffer adverse environmental effects. I do not, however, think that the noble Lord's amendment is necessary to secure that objective.
Under the current system once a licensing authority is satisfied that the use of an operating centre would be appropriate, the successful licence holder is guaranteed the use of that centre at least up to the time when he re-applies for his licence, normally at the five-year point. At that time a licensing authority can decide whether an operating centre should continue to be authorised taking into account any material change that there has been in its use. The five-yearly review system under continuous licensing will provide a similar opportunity to check on the use to which operating centres are being put. That is my first point. The system will not be the same, because there will not be the need for reapplication as if it were a first-time applicant again; but there will be a five-yearly review system and that will give an opportunity to check on what has been happening. We do not believe that it would be right to subject operators to greater uncertainty as a result of the move to continuous licensing.

1331
That is not to say that the environmental impact of operating centres will go unchecked under the new system. In future, as now, a licensing authority will be able to place environmental conditions on an operator's licence in respect of the proposed operating centre. Those conditions could, for example, restrict the timing —as I have already mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—and methods of movements in and out, the number of vehicles normally kept at the centre and the on-site maintenance arrangements. If subsequently it were found that those conditions had been broken the licensing authority could revoke, suspend or reduce the scope of that operator's licence. The licensing authority will have the power to do that at any time, not only at the given five-year review stage. He will be able to act on information brought to his notice from any source, not just by statutory objectors but by members of the public as well.
These powers are sufficient at present to provide the necessary environmental safeguards for the 10 per cent. of operating centres which cause problems. They are not in any way affected by the proposals in this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord can accept my reassurances on these matters and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am extremely puzzled by that response. The response effectively is: nothing will change. I simply cannot accept that. On this matter the Minister has said nothing more, and it does not add to the Bill. It certainly does not subtract from the need for environmental security. In those circumstances, I think I ought to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 193) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hamwee, B.

Airedale, L.

Haskel, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Judd, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mar, C.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eatwell, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Foot, L.

Peston, L.

Geraint, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

[Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

[Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Halsbury, E.

Shepherd, L.

1332

Stedman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

White, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Kimball, L.

Addison, V.

Kintore, E.

Aldington, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Alport, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Annaly, L.

Lindsay, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Astor, V.

Mancroft, L.

Balfour, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Blyth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boardman, L.

Munster, E.

Borthwick, L.

Nelson, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Newall, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Norrie, L.

Brentford, V.

Northbourne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northesk, E.

Burnham, L.

Orkney, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pender, L.

Courtown, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Cranborne, V.

Rennell, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodney, L.

Davidson, V.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Dundonald, E.

Selborne, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Elles, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Flather, B.

Strafford, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Strange, B.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sudeley, L.

Harlech, L.

Teynham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Hayhoe, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Huntly, M.

Young, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.53 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 193ZA:
Page 31, line 32, at end insert ("provided that the licensing authority is of the opinion that the operator is of good repute.").
The noble Earl said: There is a requirement for an operator of a goods vehicle to be of good repute. That was first introduced in 1984 as a result, I believe, of EC legislation. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is desirable. Clause 35 of the Bill allows for indefinite duration of the operator's licence. We need to ensure that the operator continues to be of good repute. That is the problem that the amendment addresses. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is unnecessary and poorly drafted. He is probably right, as it is purely a probing amendment.
The man on the Clapham omnibus has no difficulty in identifying someone who is not of good repute. He simply asks himself the questions: "Would I allow my goods to be carried in his vehicle?" or "Would I ride in his cab?". The trouble is that the licensing authority does not seem to employ the same criteria and is extremely reluctant to revoke an operator's licence, even when to the man in the street the operator is not of good repute.
The cowboy operators are unfair to other operators. Clearly, if they are flouting the law, their operation costs, their costs per tonne mile, must be lower than a more professional operator. One of the tricks they may try is to tax their two-axle articulated tractor at the concessionary three-axle rate, thereby saving around £2,000. Lack of action on the matter encourages other operators to flout the law to some degree in order to remain competitive.
We frequently read reports in the trade press of cowboys with bad records coming before the licensing authority. They may have inadequate maintenance facilities; they may have numerous GV9 prohibitions, many of them marked "neglect", which means that it is not simply a breakdown that occurred on the road but that the problems have been in existence for a long time. There may be systematic abuse of drivers' hours regulations—they may have a switch that electrically cuts out the tachograph at certain times; the vehicle may be overloaded; or, as I mentioned earlier, there may be vehicle excise problems. Some operators have a combination of those faults.
Cowboy operators may have criminal convictions. In one specific case an operator was twice convicted of stealing articulated trailers yet still retained his good repute and his operator's licence. If the licensing authority does not revoke the licences of the cowboy operators, he damages the industry considerably. The cowboy operators will eventually go bust for other reasons. While they are in business they depress the market rate for transport. When they go bust another cowboy operator will come along and do exactly the same.
The LA is reluctant to revoke a licence and may feel that it is putting the employees of the operator out of work. But I suggest that that is a false argument. An operator may have 10 drivers, each of whom is driving one hour in 10 too many; that means that he is driving 10 per cent. too much. The cowboy operator with 10 drivers is therefore taking away one man's living because there should be another driver on the road. The operator who inadequately maintains his vehicles should perhaps employ another fitter properly to maintain and repair the vehicle so that it can be safely operated.
The licensing authority may feel that it should give the operator one last chance—we see that comment in reports. But the cowboy operator is taking one last chance. He is trying one more dodge to keep in operation a little longer.
The cowboy operator may be ignorant, but he may also be incompetent; he may never be able to operate his fleet or his single vehicle properly. Therefore the LA should consider immediately rejecting the licence.
1334
Society does not expect operators to be of ill repute. When suppliers supply an operator with spare parts, batteries, tyres and so forth, they expect to be paid. A cowboy operator will probably not pay his suppliers. The drivers expect to be paid properly, yet frequently we hear stories of drivers working for an unscrupulous operator and either not being paid at all or not being paid the amount of money originally agreed. Customers should not be exposed to unscrupulous operators, who may lose either the whole load or part of it.
Road haulage is quite a good small business which can be run by one-man band operators. They are called owner-drivers. They can have perfectly good maintenance facilities, they can have their truck maintained by a proper garage or a dealer and they can buy new equipment, but they cannot do that if they have to compete with cowboy operators. The Minister has power under Section 59(2) of the 1968 Act to direct the licensing authorities. Presumably he can direct the LAs on matters of policy, though it would not be appropriate for him to intervene in an individual case. But it seems clear that the licensing authorities are not tough enough against cowboy operators. It should be down to the Minister or the Secretary of State to put pressure on the licensing authorities and the chief licensing authority to revoke more licences. That would deter cowboy operators.
I should have liked to put: down an amendment on county court judgments. When we look at the various pieces of legislation on this matter we see that good repute has nothing to do with county court judgments. An operator can have dozens of county court judgments against him. Nowhere in the legislation does it specifically say that the operator must not have county court judgments against him. I did not put down such an amendment because that would have increased the amount of regulation and the purpose of the Bill is deregulation. The Clerks therefore advised me that I could not do that.
When the Minister comes to reply he may refer to multi-agency checks. He has frequently made great play with such checks. I am sure that they are very efficient but he must admit that fewer inspectors are carrying out these multi-agency checks. If we cut out the cowboys by revoking their licences sooner, there would be less need to have multi-agency checks. Some of the checks can take an operator off the road for a considerable amount of time. I have heard reports that the checks can take two hours. That is excessive. If the Government want to deregulate they should try to avoid these checks. The best way to avoid the checks is to cut out the cowboy operators.
In conclusion, the licensing authorities must be more prepared to revoke. That will reduce the number of cowboys. It may be argued that, if one revokes the licence of an operator, he will simply operate without a licence. That is true. On a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, moved an amendment to allow for the confiscation of vehicles operating without an operator's licence. Unfortunately, the Government did not agree with that amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am glad that in his introduction the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that this is a probing amendment. We are discussing the matter of an operator's reputation—that he should be "of good repute". The noble Earl catalogued a number of offences, most of which are technical and are already covered by the responsibilities of the licensing authority. I refer to maintenance and so on. I endorse that but I do not feel that that has anything to do with what is set out on the Marshalled List. An earlier amendment, Amendment No. 192A, sought to ensure that the licensing authority has a duty to make sure that matters put on the application form for a licence shall be correct. My noble friend the Minister explained why he did not feel that that was necessary. This amendment falls into a very similar category and deserves a similar answer.
I thank the noble Earl for bringing the matter before the Committee so that we can say—and it can be reported in the trade press—that we are asking the commissioners to be more diligent and more forceful in enforcement and in the use of the powers they already have with regard to maintenance or where the licence holder loses his good reputation by some action at some time. It could be a brawl in the night club. If a man has a conviction for something of that nature I do not think he is of good repute. That should be taken into consideration in the review of the licence, and that can happen at any time. We have already heard from my noble friend that anyone can go to the traffic commissioners and raise an objection. Such an objection may concern the site—for example, where the operator is dropping oil all over the road—or the kind of instance which lies behind the noble Earl's amendment. I would not like the matter to go further and have it placed on the face of the Bill but I should like the Minister to assure us that enforcement, which is not altered by Virtue of the Bill, will be diligently applied.
Lord Clinton-Davis: There is a great deal of force in what the noble Earl had to say in introducing the amendment. I, too, await the Minister's response with some interest.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before I turn to the main burden of the noble Earl's amendment, perhaps I may deal with one point which stands aside a little from the amendment. The noble Earl asked whether the Minister can direct the licensing authority. The answer is yes. Under Section 59(2) of the 1968 Act the Secretary of State has the power to make general directions in relation to the exercise by a licensing authority of his function. I have to go on and say that no such directions have ever been made, as licensing authorities use their powers in a manner which ensures that they adequately control the behaviour of operators. But the power does exist if ever Ministers thought it was necessary.
There are, as I think the noble Earl is well aware, broadly two types of goods vehicle operator licences. One is a standard licence and the other is a restricted licence. A standard licence is required if an operator
1336
intends to carry goods for hire or reward. Largely, we have been discussing a standard licence holder. A restricted licence is all that is required if an operator intends to confine his activities to carrying his own goods. Under regulations made pursuant to EC directives an applicant for a standard licence must show that he, or where appropriate the directors of a company and transport managers, is of good repute. If it appears to the licensing authority that the operator is no longer of good repute he must revoke the licence. The legislation does not require an operator to be of good repute as such in order to obtain a restricted licence. The Bill does not change that but Clause 33 as drafted makes it clear that a licensing authority can refuse an application if it appears to him that an operator is not fit by virtue of his past transport related conduct. In addition, a licensing authority may at any time take disciplinary action against an operator by revoking, suspending or curtailing his licence if he has been convicted of a transport related offence.
I hope that I have answered some of the noble Earl's questions about the kind of conviction that may occur and whether, so to speak, an operator could get off scot-free. Apart from what the court decided to do, the short answer is that he could not. The licensing authority has the power at any time to take disciplinary action, even going as far as revoking the licence if the licence holder has been convicted of transport related offences which the licensing authority considers are of sufficient severity to take the step of revocation.
Earl Attlee: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out that the amendment was perhaps not appropriate or in the wrong place. I accepted that in my introduction. He mentioned a brawl in a club. For that kind of thing an operator may not lose his good repute if it is totally unrelated to good operation.
The Minister referred to restricted licences. I am sure that he is aware that there can be problems with operators operating with such licences. For instance, they could be engaged in general haulage even though they have a restricted licence. It is not legal, but they can do it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before ten minutes past eight.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: At the very commencement of today's proceedings I pointed out that five-and-a-half pages of amendments had been added between the fourth and fifth Committee days. I also added, in tribute to the facility of invention, that none of them was a very extensive amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, will remember that in the other place there was a Motion to report progress. The progress we have made now at ten minutes past seven is to complete approximately half of the extra load which was put on the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Religious Education: Specialist Teachers
7.12 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to remedy the shortage of specialist teachers of religious education.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to speak to this Question, I do so in the shadow of what I understood was said by the Secretary of State at the meeting yesterday. That leads me to suppose that it may be necessary to demonstrate that there is in fact a shortage of specialist teachers in religious education. That is easily done by quotation from Religious Education and Collective Worship, a report from the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, 1992–93.
Your Lordships will forgive me if in the brief time allocated I quote selectively. Clearly I am not going to mention a lot of very creditable things to which credit should nevertheless be given. In relation to visits to primary schools the report shows that in relation to,
"at least 20 per cent. of schools the teaching of—
religious education, which I shall henceforth call RE—
"was negligible and in others no RE was taught to some of the classes; in total only 50 per cent of schools provided RE which was satisfactory or better overall; RE was rarely accorded the status within the primary curriculum prescribed in law, and progression and continuity were lacking; a high proportion of teachers lacked the confidence, expertise, enthusiasm and interest to teach the subject effectively; many had volunteered because they valued the contribution of RE to the pupils' moral and social education"—
that at least one can applaud. The report continues:
"a substantial amount of religious education was characterised by unsatisfactory management, co-ordination and planning; insufficient time allocations; poor resources; and inadequate provision for in-service training which failed to raise the expertise and confidence of staff from a low base line; assessment, recording and reporting procedures were at a very early stage of development and in many cases non-existent".
In secondary schools visits showed that,
"RE was offered to all pupils in Key Stage 3 [but] Standards of attainment were slightly less good than expected at this stage, largely because of great variations in the knowledge and understanding which pupils brought from their primary schools".
That highlights the crisis—that is perhaps not too strong a word—in the primary schools illustrated by the first extracts which I have read. The summary of the report continues:
"the vast majority of secondary schools did not provide enough time to teach the agreed syllabus in Key Stage 4 and few provided a basic RE course for post-16 students".
I now refer to specialist teachers, which is the phrase to which I direct my noble friend's attention in this context:
"specialist teachers were generally effective and were responsible for the good work seen in examination courses. Much teaching of basic RE was in the hands of non-specialists and they were inadequately supported by current documentation in schools and the lack of appropriate INSET support".
That is the situation as reported by Her Majesty's own inspectors in this country in their latest report.
Turning to Wales, and at rather less length, we find that in the report by HMI on a survey of religious education in the core curriculum in the secondary schools of Wales, inspected in the summer term 1993 —which is again the latest report available—it is stated that:
1338
"In a substantial minority of schools a varying proportion or' the work in the year 7 to 9 is narrow in scope and generally undemanding in nature. In many (though not all) cases, a significant contributory factor"—
again I invite my noble friend's particular attention to this—
"is the involvement of non-specialist teachers with a small commitment to the teaching of the subject".
The report goes on:
"Other deficiencies include … in the majority of schools, no religious education provision for pupils in the year 12 to 13".
If further evidence is needed it is more difficult to glean because of the welter of statistics through which one has to wade in the context of other work. But I see that a collation of Table 18 of the 1992 Secondary School Staffing Survey for England and Table 5.8 of the Welsh Education Statistics Bulletin No. 7 shows that, of those who teach religious education in England and Wales, 25 per cent. have a relevant degree, 10 per cent. have only a subsidiary qualification and about 60 per cent. have no formal qualification in the subject whatever.
I draw that to your Lordships' attention in the wake of the publication of the SCAA proposals and recommended syllabuses by the schools curriculum advisory authority. It recommends that Christianity should be taught, together with two or three other religions, before year 11. I ask noble Lords to consider what that represents to an unqualified teacher, faced with delivering those disparate subjects of crucial relationship to each other and of intimate importance to the pupils' view of the world in which they live and of their own journey through this life, and without any formal qualification in the subject at all.
It cannot be said that there is not a dire shortage, whatever may be said to the contrary. If we are told to the contrary, I advise my noble friend and the Secretary of State as they stand on the platform to turn away from the timetable and look at the railway track. They should not look at what the intentions are but at what the product is. Teachers will tell you that these trains are not running much better than they were on Wednesday— that is today in fact.
I can add a little to this in two respects. I do not believe that it is necessary to harangue your Lordships about the importance of religious education, particularly in the light of the long debates which we have had in this House on the subject when passing legislation. But it is a matter of greater importance than almost any other at the stage of life when one comes to weigh up what it has all been about; and that is what we are preparing for.
But does the training matter, or can enthusiasm and conviction carry the day with children of whatever age? I came into teaching in 1960, when it was sufficient to have a degree in order to be able to teach. My degree was in history and I taught it with some satisfaction to myself and, I think, to my pupils—at least they performed pretty well by the standards which my noble friend the Minister endorses. That might have been because they were presented to me through the selective system, which my noble friend would perhaps like to reconstruct—and I would not obstruct her in that. Nevertheless, I came into teaching as a graduate

1339
historian and was able to teach history without too much difficulty—with a bit of training from the Army on how to keep order!
I came to religious education teaching because I was required to help out. I did not have the training and my enthusiasm and conviction carried me a certain way, but no further. To this day I lament the opportunities that I missed, the ground that I did not till and the seeds that I did not sow during that time. If one is not confident of one's ability in a subject, no matter how gifted one may be one cannot teach it well because one needs confidence in one's ability in a subject to be able to teach it well, not merely conviction that the subject itself is worth teaching.
Therefore, I believe that it is of great importance that we should have a sufficient number of trained people to teach religious education; that it was of great importance when I was a fledgling teacher and that it is of very much greater importance now because of the infinitely more demanding and complex task which teachers will have to face in the future if the model syllabuses are to be adopted.
There are a number of routes which my noble friend and my right honourable friend could pursue in this respect. The first relates to initial teacher training. They could expand the volume of courses available. No doubt my noble friend will say something about that. I think that it is important to attract students into such courses. That would have a hidden benefit as well as a direct benefit. The direct benefit would be more qualified teachers; the indirect benefit would be more examination classes in religious education in schools. Perhaps I may reassure my noble friend by saying that I am allowed 10 minutes and that I do not propose to use all of them, so there is no need to get excited yet.
The hidden advantage arises because if there are course vacancies leading to a qualification to teach and therefore a job, more schools will lay on courses and examination classes for those subjects. It is having an examination class in a subject which gives that subject status within a school. How much the headmaster or headmistress endorses the subject or the enthusiasm with which it is taught in the classroom does not matter. If the teaching is not going to lead to a CSE, GSE, O-level or A-level—and it is the A-level that is the real magnet—the subject is not regarded as a status subject and will not attract students, pupils or teachers. That would be the additional benefit.
We should also recognise that, once qualified, teachers teach for a heck of a long time—for many years. Therefore, it is no good improving the input because, if in our lifetime we want to see an improvement in the output, we must train teachers in post to teach religious education as a specialist subject. I am referring to those who are prepared to teach it and who are not so qualified at the moment.
With that introduction to show the seriousness of the matter, I hope that my noble friend will allow me to sit down nine minutes after standing up.
7.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for tabling this Unstarred Question at such a timely moment. It is timely because, as he pointed out, yesterday saw the launch of the new model syllabuses framed by the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority. That launch was described in the Independent this morning as an historic agreement between the representatives of the faith communities and the professional religious educational bodies. I see that launch as having great significance. I believe that it will greatly raise the profile of religious education.
I should like to express my appreciation of the Government's support for the model syllabuses which was voiced yesterday by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. They represent a wide consensus both among faith communities and profes-sionals in the field. The launch represents a moment of great opportunity. We may couple with it the requirement which Sir Ron Dearing has expressed that 5 per cent. of teaching time should be given to religious education. I should like to express my thanks also to Sir Ron Dearing and to the staff of SCAA for their work in the whole area of RE.
However, we have to contrast—the noble Lord has already done this—the great moment of opportunity which is here now with the past and present situation. I shall not go into the figures which the noble Lord has already given, but I shall underline their significance and point out that the 1992–93 report was preceded by other reports showing an equal disarray in the teaching of religious education in both secondary and primary schools. The points that the noble Lord mentioned echoed those made in earlier reports.
Furthermore, that applies not only to reports from HMI but also to reports from SACRE, which indicate precisely the same situation. In 1992, only three SACREs were reasonably satisfied with the provision of RE specialists in secondary schools. Elsewhere, there was noted a great shortage of RE teachers. And if those two pieces of evidence were not enough, the survey by Culham College indicates exactly the same situation. It is clearly the case that the hopes of the Education Reform Act that religious education would have a substantial place in teaching in our schools is not being fulfilled.
It appears from the reports that religious education as a subject has low esteem and that there is a failure to teach it properly. We hope that the model syllabuses and SCAA's recommendations will lift the situation. Perhaps I may ask the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that SCAA's recommendations, particularly over the percentage of teaching time, will be delivered.
However, delivery depends upon teachers to deliver. I hope that we shall not become further embroiled this evening in the wrangle over whether there is a shortage. I know that the DFE has resisted that. But as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, it is clear from the evidence that the subject is not being delivered as it ought to be. That is the question that we have to address.

1341
There may be many reasons why teachers flow out of the subject. It may be because RE teachers are promoted more than other teachers. It may be due to the low esteem of the subject, to which I have already referred, or to insufficient in-service opportunities. Perhaps it is due to a combination of all of those, plus other factors. However, there is undoubtedly a problem, and failure to address it will both undermine the Government's intentions and frustrate the hopes of many of us who believe that this is a moment when the profile of RE can be raised.
I should like to reverse the two proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He began with initial teacher training. I should like to begin with in-service training. It seems to me that that is where an immediate impact might be made. We need a major in-service training initiative to ensure both that non-specialist teachers in secondary schools have further professional training and that training is provided for those who are appointed as co-ordinators in primary schools and for those often enthusiastic but not necessarily qualified teachers who teach in primary schools. I echo what the noble Lord said. Enthusiasm is not enough.
The syllabuses about which we are speaking—I am delighted to see that the Minister is carrying her copy with her—are in two forms. The first puts strong emphasis on the content of belief and the second places the emphasis on entering into the experience of that belief. They both require teachers with more than enthusiasm, and—dare I say it?—more than personal faith. They require teachers with professional equipment. In-service training is the immediate route towards providing that equipment. It is possible that there may be bodies outside the statutory authority which might be able to help. Here I instance the Culham College—
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the right reverend Prelate, but the clock is moving on.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I have noticed, and I shall bring my remarks to an end. Also, ITT provision needs to be addressed in the long term. I underline once again what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, and hope that the Minister can give us some satisfaction in her reply.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we have only a few minutes in which to speak. Even in that short time, I feel that I must say how fortunate we are to have a debate of this kind introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, contributed to by the right reverend Prelate, and wound up by two such strong Christians as the Minister and my noble friend Lord Judd. I do not remember a time when the Government Front Bench and my Front Bench were represented more strongly, in a Christian sense, than they are today. I am glad to be able to pay that tribute to the Minister for various reasons. One reason is that it enables me to pay a tribute to Mr. Patten, otherwise people might suspect me of some sort of Roman Catholic plot. In fact I greatly admire the stand that he is taking over right and wrong. He is unlikely again to call some eminent man a nutter. He chose the
1342
wrong man. If he called me a nutter, I should have told him that I had been called that many times without anyone even noticing it. He was unlucky there.
I must testify briefly. I take my stand on the emphasis placed on Christianity as the country's main religion in the 1988 Act. We should never forget the part played by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is no doubt entering a danger zone tonight in some far off country. We should never forget the initiative she took, which resulted in Christianity being included for the first time in the 1988 Act.
I hope that I shall not annoy anyone too much here, but I wish to make the strongest possible denunciation of that ludicrous concept "multi-faith". The idea that this is a multi-faith country is frankly absurd. It obviously emanates from humanist quarters, not from the minority religions. We know from the last poll that 3.8 per cent. of the population belongs to a religion other than Christian, and all good luck to them. To say that we are multi-faith because 3.8 per cent. of the people belong to some other religions is totally absurd. I hope that we shall hear no more of that multi-faith nonsense now or ever.
I return to the teaching that is to be supplied. I submit strongly that there is no alternative ethical doctrine which can be introduced to young people in our schools except the Christian doctrine. I assume that Moslems, Jews and others will go to their own schools, but the only ethics available for the schools of the country are Christian ethics. No one will now suggest that school children can be brought up on Plato, desirable though that might be when they reach university, and still less, perhaps, on the teachings of Karl Marx, who I suppose is a bit discredited nowadays, even in Russia.
If there is to be any ethical teaching at all, it should be Christian teaching. Most of us in this country will agree that there has been wonderful material progress. I believe that the redistribution of wealth in favour of the poor is a great advance. But the morals of this country have undoubtedly declined in the past 50 years.. There has been an increase of crime alongside that. We must try to do what we can to ensure that our children are brought up with Christian morals. When I say "Christian morals", I mean among things—only among other things—a belief that sex outside marriage is wrong, fornication is wrong and adultery is wrong, so if they are to be taught any morals at all that should be included in the message.
That is only one part of morals. There is no morality available to the masses of our children other than the Christian morality. I hope and believe that that will be pressed more and more strongly by this Government and a Labour Government represented in the future, I hope, by my noble friend Lord Judd, and perhaps by a very strong Christian like Mr. Blair, but perhaps I should not become involved in that subject. At any rate, there it is. Christianity should be the main message in our schools. I hope that the Government will tell us that this evening.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for having missed his first few remarks as I rushed into the Chamber. I am afraid that I do not quite have the knack of ensuring that I am here for these dinner break Unstarred Questions. The Unstarred Question refers to the shortage of teachers. The noble Lord put his finger squarely on the root of the problem which is that for many people religious education is a secondary subject which is tagged on to academic achievement. Schools, for better or worse, are primarily about academic achievement. That is becoming increasingly part of the way the profession is organised.
As the noble Lord so rightly said, unless we give the teachers more status—and from what I have seen of professional teachers he is right when he says that status comes from taking people to exam level—we shall not provide sufficient impetus at all levels of education to ensure that there are sufficient teachers. As for short-term measures to try to address the problem, the Government can look realistically only to some form of in-service training and opt-out for those non-specialists who find themselves having to meet curriculum requirements. If there is no initial interest, we cannot expect teachers to do a decent job without knowledge. Someone may be able to recite a lesson to children, but real teaching begins when the teacher is asked a question and has to answer it intelligently. That means not just the first question, but the second question. Such ability can come only through training. Unless teachers are given that ability through training, they will lose out.
The SCAA recommendations have already been widely praised. They show what religious education should be about. It is a study of the majority faith of the country. I agree that when we say "multi-faith" we should be clear about what we mean. There are strong sections of other faiths in society, but our society is predominantly Christian. A knowledge of Judaism is almost essential to an understanding of the Christian faith. If the subject is being taken through, a study of Islam follows on as all three religions have a common stream and even have historical links.
If we can give that type of teaching and training we shall help solve many of the problems that face our society. I am talking about intolerance, because, once one starts to understand something, one begins to disagree with others as opposed to just denouncing them on the basis of opinion rather than knowledge. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that some positive steps are being taken to encourage better informed teachers to do the job that is necessary, because, without themselves having the information, they cannot impart it to their pupils.
7.37 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for introducing this debate at this time. Religious education teachers play an important part, if not the most important part, in trying to improve the teaching of religious education in this country. I assume that the Question deals primarily with
1344
secondary schools because specialist RE teachers are secondary school teachers, as my noble friend the Minister told us on 15th February that primary school teachers are generalists not specialists.
I should like first to ask my noble friend if when she replies she can elaborate one thing she said to us on 15th February. She said:
"It is true, however, that of 13,100 religious education specialists in the country, only half were teaching their own subject".—[Official Report, 15/2/94; col. 92.]
Will she elaborate on the reason for that? I believe that the right reverend Prelate touched, as have others, upon the status of RE teachers. Is it just that, or are there other reasons behind the shortage?
It is sad that we are teaching people to be RE specialists but that they are not exercising their skill for the benefit of students today. Is that largely because of animosity against RE? Is it because the subject is being denigrated whether by teachers or generally? The press has dealt a certain amount with the issue and, if it is true, what can Parliament, the Government or anyone else do to change that negative attitude on what is an important subject?
In practice, there appears to be a shortage of religious education specialists. Teachers with no academic or professional training are covering the subject. Do we need to change attitudes in order to obtain the best trained professional people to teach this subject?
What is the attitude to the teaching of RE in colleges of education? I do not believe that colleges of education have been mentioned but they must be an important part of the problem. Is there a positive and encouraging attitude in those colleges to the teaching of RE? Are they teaching that RE must reflect the fact that the religious traditions in this country are in the main Christian, obviously taking account of other religions?
I wish to reiterate what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford: that 80 to 90 per cent. of the population claim a form of Christian adherence and only 3 to 4 per cent. adhere to a non-Christian faith. We should be teaching predominantly the Christian faith, and I take that to be 50 to 75 per cent. Provided that in any three-year period not more than two other religions are being considered, that gives a reasonable balance. RE teachers should be taught about those issues.
There appears to be a difference of view on the value of school-based teacher training as opposed to purely college training. That must depend on the role models which are available in any school where the school-based training is taking place. I have noted the Smallpiece school-based teacher training scheme for technology teachers. There are satisfactory examples relating to school-based training and I hope mat they can be used for the improvement of religious education training.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Elton for giving us this timely opportunity to discuss these important matters. We know that some schools with atheist head teachers are refusing to teach religious education. Many more have a mish-mash

1345
approach which submerges Christianity beneath a weight of non-Christian religions. It is important that things are kept in perspective. According to the ninth report of British Social Attitudes, only 3.1 per cent. of the population adhere to a non-Christian faith and 91.8 per cent. say that they were brought up in the Christian faith. Other surveys regularly show an 80 to 90 per cent. allegiance to Christianity.
Young people are leaving schools with a shockingly poor level of knowledge of Christianity. In 1991, a MORI poll found that 57 per cent. of 18 to 24 year-olds could not say what happened on Good Friday and 62 per cent. had never heard of Pontius Pilate. A poll conducted in 1993 by Gallup found that 76 per cent. of 16 to 24 year-olds had never heard of the Ascension, with 71 per cent. not knowing what Palm Sunday commemorates. Barely a majority knew that Judas betrayed Jesus.
Those figures are absolutely appalling. We would not tolerate it if 75 per cent. of school leavers did not know that London is the capital of Britain. Why should we accept such pathetically poor knowledge of the Christian faith?
I believe that the problem is most serious at secondary level. In a recent report, school inspectors found that primary school religious education,
"focused almost exclusively on Christianity".
It is multi-faith approaches in secondary schools which destroy all the good work of the primary school teachers. Yesterday the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority launched what it calls "national model syllabuses for religious education". These proposals represent a betrayal of our nation's Christian heritage. The SCAA proposals advocate that by the age of 11 children should normally study two or three non-Christian faiths in addition to Christianity. That is absolutely ridiculous. Today our young people are not even getting to grips with Christianity, let alone with three non-Christian religions by the age of 11. I was shattered to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon say that he supports the proposals. They are an utter disgrace and the Government and the Church of England should be thoroughly ashamed of them—
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Will he accept that the major problem in relation to teaching in particular in primary schools is not that there is too much teaching of other faiths but that in some schools there is no teaching of religious education?
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, in a way I agree with the right reverend Prelate, but if more non-Christian religion is taught that is likely to confuse the issue. The primary aim is to give our students a clear knowledge of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. The appalling figures that I have given show that we have not even achieved that. It seems to me that it is a case of first things first and that we must get that right before we start teaching alternative faiths.
The Government should distance themselves from the SCAA model syllabuses. The Church of England
1346
should be ashamed of lending its support to an RE scheme which does not even require Christianity to be taught for 50 per cent. of the time.
Anxiety has been raised about the shortage of resources for religious education. In my view, the main issue is one of compliance with the law. Government statistics have shown that 6,500 fully qualified teachers of religious education have been switched to teach other subjects. The Government should address this problem by challenging schools which break the law. Has not the time come to fine schools which fail to teach religious education? Secondary schools are required to teach 11 subjects but some of them are teaching only 10. The question is: what are schools doing with the money that should be spent on religious education teachers?
The demand for RE teachers has been suppressed because head teachers are not giving the subject proper time on the timetable. As the law is enforced more teachers will be needed. Many of the 6,500 teachers could then be switched back to RE. My Lords, I have noted the time and I have almost finished.
I ask the Minister of State to ensure that any money spent on in-service training goes to promoting the implementation of the law and not a multi-faith mish-mash. A clear priority is to develop new ways of training teachers. The existing teacher training colleges have not had a good record. They seem to be very keen on a relativistic approach to religious education where Christianity is given the same attention as other faiths.
Above all, the Government must stand firm on Christianity. All European countries, save France, have religious education which is almost entirely Christian. Britain already has the most multi-faith religious education in Europe, without the new SCAA proposals being adopted. Parliament has given its legislative backing to predominantly Christian RE. It is up to the Government and the Churches to see that the law is implemented.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for raising this very important subject this evening. As he reminded us, across the road yesterday Sir Ron Dearing and representatives of a cross-section of religious faiths launched the new model syllabuses for religious education. The syllabuses obviously have immense implications in relation to any ability to recruit sufficient teachers of the right quality. We shall now have to see how effective they prove in meeting what potential teachers see as the immense challenges for young people in our multicultural society. I hope that my noble friend will at least accept the word "multicultural".
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not.
Lord Judd: My Lords, we are in fact a multicultural society. We must recognise that we have become a multicultural society.
The Earl of Longford: Since when?
Lord Judd: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, those of us who profess to be Christians must

1347
remember that others who are not Christians see us as members of other faiths. It is not logical to assume that members of other faiths are always people who are not Christians because there are people who are not Christians who see Christians as members of faiths different from their own. If we are to meet the challenge of the kind of society in which we live, we must recognise and understand that point.
Religious education is a far more demanding discipline than teaching religion, let alone religious instruction. It requires understanding and insight into a range of faiths. It also needs understanding and recognition of the significant and principal traditions of humanism and rationalism. That does not mean that we have to accept them but we must understand their place in the total order of society.
As the Religious Education Council of England and Wales put it, religious education must play:
"a vital part in the development not only of individuals but also of the mutual understanding and respect necessary to a harmonious and plural society".
Indeed, as the National Council of Hindu Temples expressed the matter:
"What hope can there be for good community relations without the possibility of mutual understanding generated by good education? We are not in the business of converting pupils to Hinduism but we are concerned that all young people in our society should have some understanding of our ancient tradition and know something of the people who practise that tradition in Britain".
As the right reverend Prelate has very properly said, the demands of religious education are certainly far too great for them to be left to the enthusiastic amateur or, indeed, to the press-ganged non-specialist. That is why the statistics are so disturbing.
In support of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I should like to draw on some statistics which the Department for Education has made available in its Statistical Bulletin 24/93 Teachers' Qualifications and Deployment in Maintained Secondary Schools in England 1992. As I understand it from the department's's own analysis, only 19 per cent. of religious education teachers have a degree in the subject. Overall, 30 per cent. of secondary school teachers have a degree in the subject that they teach; so that is not a good comparison. Only 26 per cent. of religious education teaching was taught by a teacher who had a degree in the subject compared with the average of 29 per cent. for all subjects. A mere estimated 3 per cent. of tuition was in religious education. For 11 to 13 year-olds, 23 per cent. of religious education lessons were taught by a teacher with religious education as a main subject—26 per cent. is the comparison for all subjects—and it occupies 3.7 per cent. of the time. For the last two years of compulsory secondary education, 28 per cent. of religious education lessons were taught by a teacher with religious education of a main subject with 2.5 per cent. of tuition time. None of us can be complacent about statistics like that.
What have been the special barriers to the recruitment of teachers of religious education? I suggest that there have been four barriers. There may be others but four have caught my attention. First, there is a lack of in-service training for religious education. At the
1348
launch yesterday whenever that was mentioned there was warm applause from all present. Although the grants for education support and training scheme has a programme covering the basic curriculum which includes religious education, that fund needs urgently to be enlarged.
Secondly, the tendency for religious education to be portrayed by some government spokespeople as virtually synonymous with moral instruction has not helped. It has proved a daunting prospect for potential teachers.
Thirdly, it is arguable—and it has been put to me —that the syllabuses to date have been too prescriptive and have replicated too much the over-prescription in the national curriculum subject orders which are currently under review. We shall have to see what the new syllabuses have done to put that right.
Fourthly, the introduction of the national curriculum has meant inevitably that religious education has been squeezed in schools. Teachers naturally want to feel that their subject has a high status and is recognised by the whole world of education.
In the last few moments at my disposal perhaps I may draw to the attention of the House some ideas that have been put forward on how that could be tackled. Again, I draw on the excellent thinking of the Religious Education Council of England and Wales.
First, it looks at targeted recruitment for initial teacher training: to designate and resource religious education as a "shortage" subject; to target special interest groups—for example, mature students, who are more likely to see the relevance of learning about and from religion; and also to target the principal faith communities. It has also argued for more in-service training; to extend present DFE funding for short courses; to encourage self-help, with clusters of primary and secondary teachers learning from specialists, each other, and from local faith communities. It has also emphasised the importance of changed attitudes to religious education by stressing its educational—I repeat the word "educational"—nature. The new syllabuses about which we heard yesterday are intended to deal with that. In so far as they achieve that, we shall all welcome them.
I conclude with the words of SPCK in 1970, because I believe that they are powerful words. As a professing Christian, I find them reassuring. It said:
'To press for acceptance of a particular faith or belief system is the duty and privilege of the Churches and other similar religious bodies. It is certainly not the task of a teacher in a county school. If the teacher is to press for any conversion, it is conversion from a shallow and unreflective view of life. If [the teacher] is to press for commitment, it is commitment to … that search for meaning, purpose, and value which is open to all".
When we have an approach which matches that challenge, we shall have the context in which we can begin to make good the shortages which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is so right to draw to our attention this evening.
7.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for initiating this short debate

1349
on a subject which I know causes anxiety. But I must say to my noble friend that I am in the most impossible position. I simply cannot reply satisfactorily to the debate in the time that I have been given. Therefore I shall give what I know will be an inadequate reply and perhaps we may be allowed to return to the debate on another occasion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would it be helpful to the Minister to have a debate on the SCAA proposals in the near future, because they are a matter of great concern?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should welcome that personally; but the decision about that must rest with the usual channels. I shall do what I can to persuade them to agree to such a debate.
Your Lordships will be well aware of the Government's own commitment to religious education. That reflects a personal conviction on my part, and on the part of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that religious education, with Christianity at its heart, forms an essential part of the broad and balanced curriculum to which all pupils are entitled.
For too long, religious education has been a neglected subject in many schools. We saw ample evidence of that in the Ofsted's recent report, Religious Education and Collective Worship, which drew largely from inspections in 1992–93. The report made clear that much needs to be done to improve the standing of religious education, and the quality of RE work in schools.
It is a helpful sign that new syllabuses developed in response to the requirements of the Education Reform Act were having a positive effect in some areas; and that teaching by specialist teachers, particularly in examination courses at GCSE and A-level, was generally effective.
What are the Government doing to help secure the improvements that we wish to see? In a few minutes' time I shall deal with the supply of specialist teachers. First, I should like briefly to outline some of the initiatives that have been taken centrally to underline the importance of RE and help schools fully meet their statutory obligations.
The department's circular 1/94, issued in January, gave guidance on the law relating to religious education to all maintained schools. The law requires that religious education must be in accordance with locally agreed syllabuses, that they reflect the main Christian religious traditions of this country but also give attention to the other principal religions represented. The circular also set out clearly and fully the responsibilities of head teachers, governing bodies and, where appropriate, local education authorities to see that religious education, as part of the basic curriculum of schools, is given sufficient time and resources.
Schools, the standing conferences, and others, will have been assisted by the final report of Sir Ron Dearing on the National Curriculum and Assessment published in December 1993. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, did not give voice to that fact. The one thing that Sir Ron Dearing has done is to give religious education equal status with foundation subjects in the national
1350
curriculum; in other words, that religious education should receive the same time allocation as other foundation subjects.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I readily acknowledge that fact.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I said, the latter gave indicative allocations of curriculum time for each national curriculum subject, plus religious education at each key stage. Sir Ron's allocations for RE amounted to about 5 per cent. of curriculum time.
The allocations have informed the work of slimming down the subjects of the national curriculum, which is now well in hand; and the allocations for religious education have informed development of the national model syllabuses for RE which were launched yesterday by SCAA. Local authorities and standing conferences will no doubt have an eye to Sir Ron's advice in reviewing their own syllabuses. It gives a clear signal to schools that RE must be taken no less seriously than subjects of the national curriculum.
The model syllabuses themselves, launched yester-day, were drawn up by members of the Christian denominations and other faith communities themselves, with the help of teachers. Perhaps I may tell my noble friend Lord Ashbourne—and I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said—that they are not government syllabuses. The role of the Schools Curriculum Assessment Authority has been one of a facilitator. The consensus reached on such an important subject is a considerable achievement; indeed, it was quite an achievement that there was a consensus at all.
The syllabuses are not imposed as a national blueprint, but offered to local syllabus conferences as a possible way of creating a syllabus that is educationally rigorous and conforms with legal requirements, but is flexible enough to respond to local needs.
Ofsted will also play a part in securing improvements in RE through its inspections of schools—which, as noble Lords are aware, will cover every school at least: once every four years. Monitoring the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils, including their religious education, is one of Ofsted's central statutory inspection duties. Each inspection report will comment on the quality of the school's provision in that area and, if necessary, identify action which must be taken by the governing body to remedy deficiencies. I was encouraged to hear that the Ofsted report was discussed at some length by the heads of grant-maintained schools at their conference last week, with contributions from my noble friend Lady Cox and Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
In Wales, I understand that all local education authorities have now reviewed their locally agreed syllabuses, but will be able to make use of the models launched recently if they wish. In Scotland, national guidelines for religious and moral education were issued in 1992 and HMI in Scotland has published recently recommendations for improving RE teaching. In Northern Ireland, a core syllabus to Key Stage 3 was introduced last September, and one to Key Stage 4 is due to be introduced in 1995.

1351
That brings me to the principal point of my noble friend Lord Elton; namely, that schools cannot be expected to provide religious education properly without an adequate supply of specialist RE teachers. It is a point with which Ministers are very conversant. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State discussed this and other matters a few weeks ago with the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Ripon, following his appointment as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Guildford, has raised the matter more than once. The Religious Education Council and the Reverend Dr. Gay, Director of Culham College Institute, have been corresponding with my right honourable friend; and we have seen the most recent report of Dr. Brian Gates for the Religious Education Council.
The Government seek to ensure that there is an adequate supply of qualified teachers so that the national curriculum, RE and other educational requirements are delivered effectively. In general, the present position is satisfactory, with teacher numbers increasing, vacancies at very low levels and recruitment to initial teacher training at historically high levels. But teacher supply is a complex question, requiring consideration of pupil projections, the qualifications and deployment of teachers in service, age and wastage profiles, recruitment to initial teacher training, the resources available for training and recruiting teachers, and other factors. It is important, when resources are finite and there is competition for good candidates from other employers, that the fullest use is made of the teaching skills and qualifications already available to schools. The attitude taken by heads of schools is absolutely critical in such affairs. If the head of a school gives priority to the subject, there is a will to make it happen. Where there is a will to make it happen, it happens.
In 1992 there were more than 15,000 full-time and part-time teachers in English secondary schools with post-A level qualifications in RE. More than 13,000 were full-time teachers, and two-thirds of them had religious education as a main qualification. But only about half of those 13,000 teachers were teaching RE. The number of those qualified in RE but not teaching it was very similar to the number teaching RE with no post-A level qualification. That, at least, is a question that we should ponder.
There is some mismatch of that kind between teachers' qualifications and the subjects that they teach for all the main subjects. In 1992, teachers lacking a formal qualification in RE were responsible for a minor but not insignificant share of secondary RE tuition— some 25 per cent. Some of those teachers compensate for their lack of qualifications by in-service training, experience gained from other employment or expertise developed over what may be many years' teaching of the subject. Those credentials may serve very well. It is clear from the Ofsted report, however, that that is by no means universally true.
We believe that the problems with RE staffing must be dealt with on three fronts. First, schools must, as part of their responsibilities for delivering religious
1352
education, identify deficiencies in the skills and expertise of their existing RE teachers. They must address them through in-service training, staff development courses or in-school support. The Ofsted report pointed out the importance of such action and also that practical support must come from the school's RE co-ordinator and head teacher.
The department has made substantial resources available through the grants for education support and training programme to support the national curriculum and religious education. In 1994–95, this includes grant support for £79.3 million of expenditure on books, equipment and training, according to priorities determined by individual schools. Local education authorities may also retain a proportion for training relating specifically to the introduction in schools of new RE syllabuses. GEST also supports £17 million of expenditure on courses to enhance primary teachers' subject knowledge and includes RE for the first time in 1994–95. I hope that, in considering staff development needs, schools will give RE the priority that it deserves to enable teachers to benefit from that support.
The other main actions are for the department and in due course, subject to the passage of the Education Bill, the new Teacher Training Agency. I can give all the assurances that the subject under debate will be taken very seriously. The right reverend Prelate asked how that would be delivered. Perhaps I may say, first, that my right honourable friend has no locus in the matter. The 1988 Act does not specify proportions of time but there is a very strong recommendation that it should be given equal status with other subjects in the curriculum. The Government have no locus for dealing with the detailed content, unlike the national curriculum.
The position in our circular 1/94 is clear. I refer noble Lords to paragraph 35 thereof. It states quite unequivocally that,
"As a whole, and at each key stage, the relative content devoted to Christianity in the syllabus should predominate".
I value this debate for it has provided evidence that the Government's anxiety that RE in schools should be improved is shared in this House and, I know, more widely. I repeat that religious education in schools is taken very seriously by the Government. Education without a moral and spiritual dimension is, as I have said a number of times before, no more than a clinical and arid experience. The key to successful religious education in schools will be the quality of teaching and the quality of learning. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is determined to address these issues.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
8.10 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 35.
[Amendments Nos. 193A and 194 not moved.] Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Variation of licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 194A to 194E not moved.] Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Revocation, suspension and curtailment of licences]:
[Amendment No. 194F not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Review and transfer of operating centres]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 40, line 46, after ("five") insert ("or higher than 10").
The noble Lord said: I hope I may move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I believe it is reasonably self-explanatory. The Bill as it now reads states:
"The periods of review in relation to an operator's licence are—
(a) the period of five years beginning with the date specified in the licence as the date on which it came into force; and".
I am sorry I have read the wrong line, but Clause 39(3) states:
"Regulations may amend subsection (2) of this section by substituting a higher or lower number".
The subsection then specifies a minimum of a number not lower than five. However, there is no reference to an upper limit. My noble friend is seeking to insert an upper limit of 10 years so there is a bracket of five to 10 years. This seems to me to be quite reasonable. If one is setting a lower limit of five years, one does not wish the upper limit to be indeterminate. Therefore the figure of 10 has been suggested by my noble friend. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is quite difficult to discuss this amendment without discussing the amendments we shall reach later on the affirmative procedure. However, when the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee reported, the Government took careful note of its view that the power provided by Clause 39 to change the period of reviews of goods vehicle operating centres was a Henry VIII clause. Of course the committee was concerned that there was no upper limit on the length of the review period. The amendment before us at this moment would place an upper limit of 10 years on the length of that review period. The opportunity to review operating centres is currently provided by the need for operators to apply for a replacement licence at least every five years.
It is reasonable in a system of continuous licensing to provide a similar opportunity at similar intervals of five years. Experience of the present system shows that this strikes the right balance between the interests of operators and those affected by their activities. The Government felt that experience of the new system might at some time show that the period for review could be longer than five years, at least in some circumstances.
I do not believe it would be reasonable to try to estimate what the upper limit might be. The Government would prefer to leave the matter of extensions to experience in the future and the approval of Parliament of the necessary regulations in due course.
When we reach the next two amendments we shall discuss the alternative control system, if I can call it that, which the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee suggested, which was to move from the negative to the
1354
affirmative procedure. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, looking ahead in the Marshalled List, will be able to withdraw the amendment that we are now discussing in order to move on to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and that in my name which concern the taking on board of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It is difficult to discuss this matter as the amendments we are discussing are in a sense grouped —but they are not. They are not consequential in any way on each other. I think my noble friend will be only too pleased to read in Hansard tomorrow what the Minister has said in relation to the 10-year upper limit. I think it probably would be better if I were to seek leave to withdraw this amendment and then ask my noble friend to move his second amendment which falls in line with the amendment in the name of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 40, line 47, at end insert ("and no such regulations shall be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me in that the speed with which the Bill is now moving through Committee—I greatly commend that —denied me the opportunity of moving Amendment No. 195. But as my noble friend said, that was essentially a probing amendment but it also formed part of the very great concern expressed in this part of the Chamber from the beginning about the provisions for scrutiny in the Bill.
Part I of the Bill makes certain additional provisions given the nature of the legislation and the use of secondary legislation where we believe that primary legislation would be appropriate. However, elsewhere in the Bill there is a notable failure to make minimum safeguards available. It was for that reason that the scrutiny committee in its ninth report, as this Committee will know, drew attention to a number of changes which it thought your Lordships in Committee would wish to consider. Here I refer to paragraph 8 of the ninth report of the scrutiny committee. That paragraph refers first of all to the matter just discussed by the Committee; namely, the five to 10-year period. The report states:
"As the power is at present to be exercised with no upper limit on the period of time between reviews, the House may wish to consider amending the bill to provide for such a limit, or to provide for the affirmative procedure in this case".
My amendment is designed to provide for the affirmative procedure, but I am led to believe that the amendment in the name of the Minister which is also being debated with Amendment No. 196 seeks to achieve precisely the same purpose, perhaps in a rather better way. Rather than pursue the case for my amendment, I will be happy to give way if the Minister will explain his amendment and convince me—he may well do so—that it provides the safeguards of the kind which otherwise I would be asking for. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to intervene now just to explain the amendment in my name which is grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. As I mentioned in the previous short debate with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, this arises from the views expressed by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. We took careful note of the view of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that the power provided in Clause 39 to change the period of the reviews of goods vehicle operating centres was a Henry VIII clause. (That, of course, is a clause in which primary legislation is amended by secondary legislation.) We also took note of the concern of the committee that there was no upper limit on the length of the review period. In our discussions on Amendment No. 195 I explained why we did not consider it appropriate to include an upper limit. However, we are content to accept the recommendation that orders under this power should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I am advised that Amendment No. 196 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, as drafted is not the most appropriate way of giving effect to that intention. The Government have therefore brought forward an equivalent amendment—Amendment No. 196C—to Schedule 12 of the Bill. The noble Lord has already indicated that he will withdraw his amendment. I am sure that the Committee will accept my amendment, Amendment No. 196C.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Given that reassurance I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 42, line 19, at end insert:
("(aa) that any vehicle cease to be specified in the licence;").
The noble Lord said: I am sure that the Committee will agree that a licensing authority should have the power it needs to reduce the scope of an operator's continuous licence when it removes an operating centre or attaches conditions to a licence at the five-year point. This is a small technical amendment which ensures that the licensing authority will have that power. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I welcome what appears to be a conversion on the part of the Minister to some lucidity in relation to the powers of the licensing authority. While I accept the amendment, it seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the attitude that the noble Lord has taken in the past. How is this consistent with the logic of the previous arguments which he has adduced? However, I do not want to cause him to waver at this stage and therefore I strongly support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Fees]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 196B:
Page 45, line 45, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to make it obligatory on the part of the authority not to proceed with an application if the fee is not paid. It is our view that an impecunious applicant should not be able to get a licence. At the moment there is nothing to stop an application proceeding notwithstanding the fact that the fee may not have been paid.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to probe the Government's intentions in this regard. Perhaps a hint of the Government's good will was demonstrated by their volunteering the previous amendment, of which I wholly approve. I hope that the Minister will be equally benign in relation to this simple amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I hope that the spirit of good will does not become too prevalent. Clearly, after dinner we have made a good start. However, in the case of this amendment I hope to be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the discretionary powers are sensible, although he will appreciate that the number of times they will be used will be very small indeed.
As the clause is drafted it gives the licensing authority discretionary powers to decline to proceed with applications for or the issuing of licences or variations until any due fee or instalment has been paid. We believe that it is necessary for the power to be discretionary so that the licensing authority can deal with exceptional circumstances in which an operator has done all he can to ensure payment but where, for example, a cheque is delayed in the mail due to industrial action or something of that nature which is quite legitimate. We believe that the licensing authority ought to have discretion. I suspect that, if there is any hint that the delay is due to the fact that the applicant cannot find the money, the licensing authority might have another look at whether he ought to have a licence.
I believe that there could be exceptional circumstan-ces in which the use of the discretionary power is desirable. I hope that with that explanation of the reason for the discretionary power the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not wholly persuaded by that response. Again, it is one of those issues on which I feel it is necessary to reflect on what the Minister has said with some care. I shall certainly do that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Goods Vehicle Operator Licensing: Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 196C:
7, line 13, at end insert:
("(5) After section 91(6) there shall be inserted—
"(6A) No regulations shall be made under section 69EA(3) of this Act unless a draft of them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.".
(6) In section 91(7) after "of this Act" there shall be inserted ", other than regulations under section 69EA(3),".").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Undertakings given on applications]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 47, line 10, at beginning insert:
("(1A) After subsection 14(3) (b) there shall be inserted—
"(c) that there will not be any adverse effects on local environmental conditions as a result of the activities of the licence holder." ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 197. We return here to an environmental issue, but this time in relation to public service vehicles.
I believe that it is right that an application for a public service vehicle operator's licence should be capable of being refused on environmental grounds. The pro-visions in the Transport Act 1968 concerning lorry operating centres provide, as we have reviewed in earlier debates, the ability to object to such an application on environmental grounds. A similar provision does not exist in relation to the operation of public service vehicles. In this amendment we seek to raise the principle that similar environmental safeguards should apply to PSV operating centres.
We have seen bus deregulation emerge under the provisions of the Transport Act 1985. As a result, the number of bus operators has increased substantially. We have also seen a burgeoning of smaller operators. In many cases the storage facilities for such operators' vehicles are inadequate. Environmental problems have resulted. I shall not weary the Committee at this stage with the evidence, but to illustrate what I am saying, there have been instances of buses being kept permanently on the street.
It is difficult to justify a distinction in principle between the inclusion of environmental factors in a goods vehicle operator licensing regime but to exclude it from the passenger service vehicle regime. We are being consistent in the principles that we are advancing.
I must declare an interest as President of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. My understanding is that over a considerable period of time the AMA has made representations to the Government—I believe that other representations will also be made—in order to correct that anomaly, but until tonight without success. However, I am sure that light will dawn tonight. Does the Minister accept that there should not be inconsistency? If he says that there should be a difference between the two regimes, how does he justify that? In the absence of a provision such as that which I commend to the Committee, how does the Minister envisage that the environmental impact of inadequate PSV operating centres should be addressed?
Again, it is a matter which intrudes upon the right of many residents to decent protection of the environment. It is an issue which should have been corrected long ago. If there were inadequacies in the previous regime, as there clearly were, they should have been corrected then However, the fact of the matter is that people
1358
should not be exposed to such risks. I believe that it is an area of activity which should be curbed and the Minister has it within his power so to do.
The Minister states that he cannot continue to be too magnanimous. I suppose that there are limits to any Conservative Minister's magnanimity. However, I should have thought that it was an area in which it would be appropriate for him to make a suitable concession. At the very least, I hope that he will say that it is a matter on which he will ponder further, if he does not accept the amendment. The representations have been made powerfully to the Opposition Benches. The Minister is well aware of the anxieties. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As we move to this new chapter of the Bill, perhaps I may say that the purpose of the Bill is to deregulate and reduce the level of unnecessary control on industry. The amendment introduces new constraints on PSV operators by adding an additional condition to be satisfied before the traffic commissioner grants a licence.
We are sensitive to the need to balance the position of local people with an efficient public transport system which gives local people a pleasant environment in which to reside. In other parts of the general transport debate, encouraging public transport is one of the ways in which we are usually urged to help improve the environment. An important means of public transport is the bus. We therefore have to strike a balance with regard to how we treat PSV operating centres and the licences.
However, I believe that sufficient powers are available to local authorities to ensure that balance. We do not believe it is necessary to introduce a further raft of controls on environmental grounds into the PSV operator licensing system. I do not believe that that would help the environment. It would add needlessly to the hurdles facing those who wish to start a business in the bus industry.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I cited an example which is given authoritatively of buses being kept in the street. That cannot be good on environmental or safety grounds. How can the local authority deal with that situation at present without the reinforced powers that I advocate?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I intend to come to the point raised by the noble Lord. I had certainly considered that it needed answering. I can quite appreciate that a bus parked in one's street—it would not be constantly parked because no doubt it would go on service runs—could be considered an environmental nuisance. However, before I reach the detail, perhaps I may give some of the background. When the bus services were deregulated in 1986, the Government gave careful consideration as to whether environmental controls should be introduced on PSV operating centres similar to those which had been put in place for goods vehicle operators. We concluded that there were significant differences between the two operations.

1359
There are far fewer PSV operators. There are some 7,200, as opposed to 130,000 HGV operators. So there is quite a difference of scale.
We concluded then that there was no evidence that PSV operating centres caused significant problems of the type that existed for goods vehicles. Most of the PSV operating centres were well established and accepted in their locality. Before a new operating centre can be used, the operator must have planning permission. In the gaining of that planning permission, there is the provision for the planning authority to deal with any potential environmental problems.
On the specific question of buses spoiling a local environment by parking in the street, or, I suspect, going through areas in which they should not travel, or through which they did not travel in the past, a traffic regulations order can be imposed under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prohibit or restrict the use of a road by a particular class of vehicle—in this case buses. Orders can be made for preserving or improving the amenities of areas through which a specific highway runs. Orders may determine which highways may be used by PSVs and can stipulate the places at which PSVs may stop for a longer time than is necessary for taking up and setting down passengers. They may also include parking and waiting restrictions.
In other words, the local authorities already have the powers on the highway to deal with the problem raised by the noble Lord. I do not believe that it is necessary to add the powers to those of the traffic commissioners, although I fully recognise the problem that he raises. I hope and expect that, if the problem occurs in any given area, the local authorities will use the powers at their command to prevent bus parking being an environmen-tal nuisance.
I hope that, with that explanation of how the situation to which the noble Lord referred can be dealt with, he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: That is not happening, is it? The bus legislation passed through the House before the present Minister was in his job. Some of us were ploughing through that legislation night after night. I do not blame him for not being present; it was very wise of him. The Bill was very hard work. However, a number of us expressed grave worries about some of the consequen-ces of that Bill. I remember that the late lamented Lord Underhill—he preceded the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—spoke at length about the dangers of the legislation with regard to small bus operators. We all predicted that there would be a sudden mushrooming of small bus operators using second-hand buses, with little control and little maintenance, and generally creating a nuisance.
I am afraid that that is precisely what has happened. While overall, as a result of that legislation, bus usage has gone down, and many of us who live in rural areas have seen our bus services truncated if not disappearing altogether, one of the major problems has been the cowboys.
There have been cases recently in Somerset, as the noble Lord may have heard, where school buses had to
1360
be taken off the road. Four or five operators had to be dealt with, but only when they were causing severe problems for the local authority. All right, the local authority stepped in, but it should never have got to that state.
If the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will go some way towards prevention rather than cure, then it ought to be taken more seriously by the Government. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will seek much more reassurance from the Government than he has already received.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for injecting into the debate the background against which the issues were considered previously. I was not involved, but my late and much lamented friend and colleague Lord Underhill, whom we all miss, would have tackled the issue with his characteristic assiduity. He had a remarkable penchant for the common sense approach to such issues. Therefore, his forecast of the kind of dangers that have erupted has proved to be absolutely accurate.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is quite right in referring to the circumstances under which some operators carry out their business today. Privatisation and deregulation in that regard have not proved to be an overwhelming success, precisely because there have been too many cowboy operators paying inadequate attention to safety and environmental requirements. Therefore, in the light of the circumstances which have prevailed since that legislation was enacted I think we should benefit from experience. I find that the Minister's conclusions, with respect, are bizarre. He ignores that experience. He asserts that the licensing authorities have sufficient powers already. If they have, it is remarkable that the powers are not being exercised. It may be that they are under different pressures or that they have not found it possible to carry out the duties with the necessary assiduity that is required of them.
However, we must have regard to the legal requirements which should be introduced in the Bill. I simply cannot accept either that the suggestion I have made is otiose or that the Government are going about their business in achieving a true balance. The scales are heavily tipped against environmental considerations. It is too easy for environmental nuisance to take place.
Baroness Hamwee: I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening. Perhaps I should have made the point earlier, but it might add to his arguments. The Minister said that the Bill is about deregulation. Having read the sections on public service vehicle operator licensing, it seems to me that this part of the Bill should be the "regulation and imposing of extra provisions" part of the Bill. Does the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, agree that in proposing a condition about environmental considerations, which should concern all Members of the Committee, his amendment would be entirely within the grain of this part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I thought that was my argument, but I thank her for giving emphasis to it.

1361
The fact is that there is nothing in the provision for the Government to find unacceptable. That is the essence of the matter. If the Government are anxious to ensure that their good faith is not impugned, that they have every interest in maintaining the proper balance to which the Minister constantly alludes, here he has a superb opportunity of establishing his bona fides—not his personal bona fides, but those of the Government. He says that there is a difference of scale as against heavy goods vehicle operators. That should make it easier for enforcement to take place, not the contrary. He says that there is no evidence of similar environmental problems. I urge him to look carefully at the situation because, in my submission, there is ample evidence of environmen-tal problems of a scale that is unacceptable.
I do not believe that these are issues where planning permission is the answer. I know that the Minister is not prepared to give way on this, he said as much in the clearest possible terms. So I think that it is an issue where I should test the opinion of the Committee.
8.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 197) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 51.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hooson, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Attlee, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Barnett, L.

Jeger, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Judd, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Listowel, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mar, C.

Dahrendorf, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Meston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Eatwell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Pin of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Redesdale, L.

[Teller.]

Richard, L.

Gregson, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollick, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

1362

Valley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

White, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wigoder, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Howe, E.

Annaly, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Arran, E.

Leigh, L.

Astor, V.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brentford, V.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cranborne, V.

Reay, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Denham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Downshire, M.

Shrewsbury, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Goschen, V.

[Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.53 p.m.
[Amendment No. 197ZA not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 47, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) In section 17(1) after the words "as to professional competence" there shall be inserted "and the Traffic Commissioners shall also revoke the licence if the holder has shown consistent disregard for drivers' hours regulations."").
The noble Lord said: What we seek to do in this amendment is to put the responsibility for adhering to drivers' hours regulations on the holders of PSV operators' licences. It is an attempt to counter the current blatant disregard for the law so far as this matter is concerned, and indeed to take account of public concern over recent motorway crashes such as that on the M.2 in which nine American tourists were killed and in which driver fatigue was a contributory factor.
Driver fatigue needs to be taken far more seriously than the Government take it at the present time. Disgruntled coach drivers for National Express are threatening to go on strike over hours that put lives at risk. That would be an unprecedented situation for them. Seventy-five drivers in Liverpool who work for a firm that is contracted by National Express decided to walk out after telling their employers that their rota was a danger to passengers. That is not good news.
So far as the European Union rules are concerned, I have already indicated to the Committee on previous occasions and I do not need to repeat it at length now that the present rules are simply not adequate. That is why they are being reconsidered by the European Union. There is nothing to stop the Government taking some action now. There is ample legal reasoning under Article 36 of the treaty which enables the Government to do precisely that. Therefore I commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am delighted that I have an audience again. I congratulate all the Members of the Committee who are having dinner somewhere or other in the Palace of Westminster. I am only glad that we were able to get a few amendments under our belt because the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was a little late back from dinner.
We now turn to another amendment on the powers of the traffic commissioners with regard to the drivers' hours regulations. I do not think that there is anything between the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and myself on the subject of the importance of the restrictions on drivers' hours and on ensuring that they are fully complied with. We are very well aware of the significance of those regulations in maintaining and improving the safety record of our bus industry. It is fair to say that despite the recent number of highly publicised accidents, there is no question that overall bus travel is a very safe means of passenger travel. The statistics are certainly there to prove it. But of course that depends on a variety of matters being complied with by the bus operators. We are discussing here the question of drivers' hours.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that this amendment is not needed to meet the objective of securing compliance. It seeks to give a power to the traffic commissioners which they already possess. If I may explain what that power is, I hope that I shall convince the noble Lord that it is unnecessary to add this particular amendment to the Bill.
Anyone who shows a consistent disregard for drivers' hours regulations will be prosecuted and, if convicted of the offences, will stand to lose his licence. The grounds on which a traffic commissioner may revoke an operator's licence are that the holder no longer satisfies the requirement to be of good repute, the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing or the requirement as to professional competence.
Under Schedule 3 to the 1981 Act, a traffic commissioner shall determine that an individual is not of good repute if he has been convicted of serious offences or has been repeatedly convicted of road transport offences. The schedule, in defining a road transport offence, states that it is,
"an offence under the law in force in any part of the United Kingdom relating to road transport, including in particular drivers' hours and rest periods".
The position is similar with regard to company licence holders.
I hope that that explanation reassures the Committee and the noble Lord that the licensing system already provides sanctions to help ensure compliance with drivers' hours regulations and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not accept that argument at all. The Minister speaks of serious offences. In the view of the traffic commissioners serious offences may not involve a consistent disregard for the drivers' hours regulations. The matter therefore needs to be reinforced. It will do the Bill no harm; indeed, it will do it a considerable amount of good. Therefore I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.197A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 51.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Attlee, E.

Judd, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bottomley, L.

Listowel, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Mar, C.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Craigavon, V.

Meston, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

[Teller.]

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harnwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollick, L.

Varley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Hooson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Henley, L.

Annaly, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Blatch, B.

Leigh, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brentford, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Colwyn, L.

Marlesford, L.

Courtown, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Goschen, V.

St. Davids, V.

Harlech, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hayhoe, L.

1365

Slrathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

[Teller.]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.7 p.m.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 197AA not moved.]
Clause 49 [Objections to applications for licences]:
[Amendment No. 197AB not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Duration of licences]
[Amendment No. 197B not moved.]
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 197C:
Page 48, line 19, at end insert (" , following a probationary period of 12 months, at the end of which period the traffic commissioner shall review the grant of the licence.

(2A) The matters which the traffic commissioner shall take into account when carrying out such a review shall include:—

(a)whether the PSV operator has caused or permitted any vehicles operated under the licence to park illegally;

(b)whether there have been any complaints as to noise disturbance from the site from which vehicles are operated by the PSV operator; and

(c)the likelihood of environmental damage resulting from the indefinite grant of the PSV operator's licence.").

The noble Lord said: Like others, I come from the deeper recesses to move this amendment, which I shall do very rapidly. I suggest to the Committee that we are not likely to discuss a more important amendment on this part of the Bill than the amendment before us which seeks to safeguard the lives of children by insisting on seat belts. In a recent incident, children from the Hagley Roman Catholic High School were involved in a hideous collision in which 12 of them died. Suffice it to say that the coroner, Mr. Coker, found that because the children were not wearing seat belts they were all thrown to one end of the coach, a fire started and they could not be evacuated. Nothing tells us of the need for this amendment more clearly than that recent incident.
It was astonishing that on virtually the same day as the inquest Mr. Robert Key, the Minister, announced that the Government saw no need for seat belts. This ' amendment is moved to allow the House to say that there is—
Viscount Ullswater: I believe there may be some mistake. The Deputy Chairman called Amendment No. 197B and it was not moved. We are now dealing with Amendment No. 197C.
Lord Howell: It was a mistake. If it is not possible to rectify that mistake, it ought to be possible by the leave of the House. Therefore, I shall continue with my speech.
It was quite astonishing that the Minister decided on the same day as the inquest to announce that there was no need for the Government to take action. We know that the European Community is investigating this issue. We know that there is a cost to installing seat belts and that that is a consideration. But the most important consideration of all—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Ullswater: We seem to be in some difficulty. The noble Lord appears to be addressing himself to an amendment which we have already passed. I feel that it would be difficult to go back at this moment. In fact, the Orders of the House do not allow us to do so, having decided on an amendment. I think that we ought perhaps to address our remarks to Amendment No. 197C, which is the amendment before the Committee.
Lord Howell: If it is not possible to address Amendment No. 197B, which was clearly my intention —I do not wish to inflict any discourtesy on the Committee—I shall seek leave to withdraw now and come back to this vital matter at a later stage in the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may ask for guidance. Is it not possible at this late stage to debate Amendment No. 197B now as a manuscript amend-ment? I ask for the guidance of the Committee. I believe that that is in order.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe it would be for the convenience of the Committee to adjourn for a few minutes in order to decide on the proper thing to do. Any manuscript amendment would need a certain amount of consideration by the Government. Perhaps we would not be ready to take it just at this moment. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Noble Lords need to know for how long the House is to be adjourned.
Viscount Ullswater: I was going to suggest a period of 10 minutes in order for the Government to have a look at the manuscript amendment and consider it. It is a late hour for putting in a manuscript amendment. It is right for the Government to look at it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for a period of 10 minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 9.14 to 9.30 p.m.]
House again in Committee on Clause 50.
Lord Howell: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 197C.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved manuscript Amendment No. 197CA:
Page 48, line 19, at end insert (" , following a probationary period of 12 months, at the end of which period the traffic commissioner shall review the grant of the licence.

(2A) The matters which the traffic commissioner shall take into account when carrying out such a review shall include:—

(a)whether the PSV operator has caused or permitted any vehicles operated under the licence to park illegally;

(b)whether there have been any complaints as to noise disturbance from the site from which vehicles are operated by the PSV operator;

(c)the likelihood of environmental damage resulting from the indefinite grant of the PSV operator's licence; and

1367

(d) the extent to which the PSV operator voluntarily complies with best safety practice, particularly with regard to vehicles in which school children are or may be carried.").

The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Government business managers and to the Committee for the difficulties that we have had. I express our appreciation for the way in which they have met us on this vital matter of protecting the lives of schoolchildren in minibuses. As I have used all the arguments previously, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am slightly confused, as I am sure is the whole Committee. There I was, after dinner in a benign good mood, giving way on a major issue of deciding whether changes to Clause 39 should be done by the affirmative or negative resolution procedure. The few Members in the Chamber were in fine good mood. Then all of a sudden the audience swells and voting takes place at a high rate. I may say that that was after seven or eight amendments had fallen by the wayside because the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was not in his place to move them—
Noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We then proceeded to discuss the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which indicated that it considered Clause 39 and the powers sought in it to be a Henry VIII clause. I was prepared to listen to the argument and to read the argument in the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I brought forward my amendment, which the Committee was delighted to accept. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and I exchanged pleasantries.
After a little while we moved into a situation where, having not moved an amendment, we then tried to move a manuscript amendment; and we are now where we are. I wish to be quite clear that the manuscript amendment to which I am speaking is the one before me because I thought that we were dealing with Amendment No. 197C, having passed by Amendment No. 197B. We seem to be speaking to an amendment to Clause 50 and I shall come to what Clause 50 does later—very, very much later.
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that I have noticed a new practice which is not brought from the other place and not even brought from the European Parliament. No doubt it is brought by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Richard, who I believe are the only two former European Commissioners present in the Committee at the moment. It is brought from the European Commission and the Council of Ministers where, when a little trouble breaks loose and there has to be an adjournment, the clock is stopped. That is a very odd procedure but your Lordships will agree that it is a procedure well rehearsed by the European Council. It stops the clock, resolves the problem and after a while —five minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 25 minutes, 30 minutes, 35 minutes, 40 minutes—it then starts the clock again. Miraculously, of course, the clock has moved on again in the meantime. That is puzzling; but that has been done this evening.
1368
I want to be sure that I have amalgamated the two amendments which were tabled properly on the Marshalled List, and that I now understand what I am doing; that is, that I am looking at an amendment to Clause 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It states:
"Page 48, line 19"—
that is, of course, in Clause 50—
"at end insert (", following a probationary period of 12 months, at the end of which period the traffic commissioner shall review the grant of the licence.

(2A) The matters which the traffic commissioner shall take into account when carrying out such a review shall include:—

"(a) whether the PSV operator has caused or permitted any vehicles operated under the licence to park illegally;

(b) whether there have been any complaints as to noise disturbance from the site from which vehicles are operated by the PSV operator; and

(c) the likelihood of environmental damage resulting from the indefinite grant of the PSV operator's licence.".

That is what is on my Marshalled List as Amendment No. 197C.
We now move back to Amendment No. 197B. From Amendment No. 197B, we do not take all of it. We take only paragraph (d) which states:
"(d) the extent to which the PSV operator voluntarily complies with best safety practice, particularly with regard to vehicles in which school children are or may be carried".
As so many Members of the Committee have suddenly taken an interest in the issue it is fair that I should point out to the latecomers to the debate the background which we are discussing and what Chapter IV is about, which puts Clause 50 and the amendments tabled so carefully by the noble Lord into context.
The provisions in this part of the Bill, including Clause 50 and including the amendments that we are discussing, are for public service vehicles and are similar to those which we discussed earlier this evening in relation to goods vehicles. Their purpose is to deregulate the system for the benefit of PSV operators and to tidy up some of the administrative procedures.
The most important deregulatory measure is the move to continuous licensing. Of course, I must say to noble Lords that that is very relevant to the particular amendment which is before us. At present, all but a handful of operators fail to satisfy the traffic commissioners that they should have their licences renewed for five years so there is clearly no need for all operators to have to go through the formal procedure for licence renewal.
Operators and their activities will, however, be subject to checks at any time. That is extremely important when we look at the three amendments before us this evening. There will be no change in the system of enforcement by the Vehicles Inspectorate. Of course, it is that inspectorate which will stop and check those vehicles to ensure that they are up to standard in every possible way. It will continue to ensure compliance with PSV operator licensing and also a high standard of vehicle maintenance. I know that all noble Lords, and especially the Government, are most keen that there should be a high standard of vehicle maintenance.
The traffic commissioners will be able to impose conditions or revoke licences if standards are found to be wanting. Therefore, under the new provisions in the Bill operators will gain from the measures that we are

1369
discussing this evening, including those in Clause 50. Operator licences will run indefinitely. That is a most important aspect when we are considering the current amendment which proposes to introduce a probationary period.
The Government's proposals in the Bill—as, indeed, was the case with heavy goods licences which we discussed earlier and in some detail—are that operator licences will run indefinitely. That will remove from PSV operators, as it does in Chapter III of the Bill as regards heavy goods operators, the unnecessary and costly administrative burden of having to apply for fresh licences every five years whether or not there has been any material change in their circumstances.
Operators will be able to take up fewer than the maximum number of discs which are authorised on their licence, so enabling them to reduce costs and react more readily to fluctuations in the market. There will be greater flexibility in cases where an operator's licence is suspended or an operator is disqualified from holding a licence, as traffic commissioners will have a new power. I should have thought that that would have been of vital interest to noble Lords opposite who are interested in the powers of the traffic commissioners in certain circumstances. As I said, the commissioners will have new powers to cancel or vary their decisions on such matters.
I shall tell the Committee about the undertakings which an operator may give. I am sure that at least my noble friends will be interested to know exactly what they are; as, indeed, will noble Lords opposite. Undertakings that an operator has given in his application for a licence will be recorded. The operator may apply to have them varied or removed if his circumstances change. Coupled with the new flexibility of continuous operator licensing, there will be more flexible arrangements for paying fees. Regulations will provide that payment may be made in annual instalments instead of a five-year lump sum. That is appropriate when moving from five-yearly periods to a continuous licensing system. Of course, there will be appropriate sanctions for non-payment of fee instalments. That is what we are doing.
I mentioned a few moments ago—in fact, it may have been five minutes ago as time passes so quickly—that those Members of the Committee who are interested in PSV operator licences may like to know exactly what is in the licence and what undertakings the applicant has to give. All applicants for public service vehicle operator licences must sign a statement of intent or undertaking at the time of making their application in the following manner:
"I will make proper arrangements so that the laws relating to the driving and operation of the vehicles used under this licence are observed; the rules on drivers' hours are observed and proper records kept; vehicles do not carry more than the permitted number of passengers; vehicles are kept in a fit and serviceable condition; drivers report mechanical faults in vehicles as soon as possible; and, records are kept for 15 months of all safety inspections, routine maintenance and repairs to vehicles and these are made available on request".
The applicant further states:
1370
"I will maintain adequate financial resources for the administration of the business and I will tell the traffic commissioners of any changes or convictions which affect the licence".
Members of the Committee opposite wish to add the words of the amendment to Clause 50. I am not entirely sure whether my noble friends would like me to remind them of the amendment because I am in the lucky position of having it in front of me. Just in case one or two of them would like me to do that, I suggest that they look at page 48, line 19 of the Bill at Clause 50. They will see that this amendment to Clause 50 proposes that we should insert:
"Following a probationary period of 12 months at the end of which period the traffic commissioners shall review the grant of the licence".
I am not entirely sure how this probationary period is meant to work. How will it be operated? Do the traffic commissioners have to be sure of and check up on the good repute, professional competence and financial standing of the applicant all over again ? I believe that that is something we must consider because that would mean that at the end of the probationary period the traffic commissioners would have to treat the applicant as if he were a new applicant. They would have to go right back to the beginning.
Do the traffic commissioners have to be satisfied that these requirements are not met? Do they have to be sure that the applicant, somehow or other, no longer has good repute, or professional competence, or adequate financial standing? Does the review have to be advertised? Earlier we discussed the need for advertising. My following point is not mentioned in the amendment. Therefore it is clearly not entirely an effective amendment: indeed, it is probably a defective amendment. I would not be surprised, given the speed with which it was written. At the end of the probationary period will we have to go back to the beginning and insist that reviews are advertised in the local papers? Perhaps the local papers will be delighted to know that all that will have to be done and that applicants will have to re-advertise after a 12-month period in the local papers. This part of the clause might be considered to be to the benefit of local papers. I am not sure whether that will happen. But some Members of the Committee did not win an amendment earlier which I resisted. I am more than pleased that I resisted it. I may be prepared to develop the theme of why I resisted it.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: I interrupt the noble Lord because this is all very enjoyable but your Lordships' House has certain traditions and certain correct ways of behaving. There is a limit beyond which the patience of all Members of the Committee can be exhausted. I understand what the noble Lord is up to. I understand that he and his noble friends are cross because they do not like to be beaten two-nil, and they hate to be beaten three-nil, but the fact remains that there are limits to one's patience. I hope that the noble Lord will at least have the courtesy to remain within our normal traditions and not simply repeat everything that he has said and break the rules. I have no objection to him discussing the substantive amendment and I will listen to him, as I

1371
have been listening to him, but I feel that, more important than the behaviour of the Government and the fact that they have just been beaten two-nil, is the fact that they should pay some attention to the traditions of your Lordships' House and to decent behaviour within your Lordships' House.
Lord Lyell: Before my noble friend gets up to speak, may I ask him to ask the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench to look at a little red book on which we all take the oath? It is called the Bible. If he will look at the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 8, verse 7, he may find an interesting reference. He can cut out the bit about the woman taken in adultery. However, he may read the sentence: "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone". Before the noble Lord or anyone else lectures your Lordships' House on behaviour, he should refer back to the proceedings just before the adjournment. It is certainly a case of pots calling kettles black or whatever may be traditional in your Lordships' House. We are discussing the manuscript amendment and engaged in a ritual dance only because an error was made. Your Lordships do have humour. I regret that humour is not apparent on the Opposition Front Bench.
Lord Peston: That is interesting but it is not the issue. I did not realise that defeating the Government had now become a sin. If it were, as one of the more moral Peers, I should not engage in such things. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to defeat the Government. It is perfectly reasonable for those of us who engage in such activities to behave like decent people. I am not happy if the Committee is simply abandoning any attempt to discuss the Bill seriously in order to waste time.
I always find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, interesting. I have no objection to him developing his argument. I do object to a blatant attempt to waste time in order not to accept another defeat. I do not believe that that is a fair game which any of us would want to play in any circumstances.
Lord Harlech: Perhaps I may intervene. It has been very interesting to hear what the Committee has discussed. A great deal of interest has been expressed by many people who know a great deal about the subject. We are now being diverted into a question of whether there is time wasting in the Committee.
I should like to make this point in relation to the Bill that we are discussing in this Committee stage. My noble friend the Minister has explained very clearly that the procedures for HGV and PSV licensing are already in place. All the safeguards are in place. If a lady kills herself and 12 children by driving at 28 miles an hour into a vehicle which is engaged in white-lining the road, the children, had they had seat belts, would simply have died more quickly. It is not appropriate to make statute after the event.
If one wants to devise proper safeguards for the carriage of people that is an important issue. But it is not an appropriate issue to discuss in relation to the way this Chamber conducts its business.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): I came into the Committee towards the tail end of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. He said that it was not a normal procedure for my noble friend Lord Mackay to speak as he did in discussing the amendment.
In my view, the issue is a simple one. We are dealing with an amendment which was not on the Marshalled List but is a manuscript amendment. Given that the situation has changed, it must be right that my noble friend should at the very least deal with that amendment, moved at very short notice, in an extremely full manner.
Secondly, I have dealt with many Bills in this Chamber. Only once before have I been faced with a manuscript amendment. I have never been faced with a manuscript amendment at such short notice. Given that fact, I believe that it is entirely appropriate for my noble friend to explain the position.
Perhaps I may make this final point. With so many new Members of the Committee who have not hitherto been assiduous attenders in respect of this area of the Bill, the Government's position should be fully explained.
Lord Monkswell: I moved a manuscript amendment the other day. At the time I apologised that it was laid at short notice. That manuscript amendment was dealt with within seven minutes. We have spent 17 minutes on this manuscript amendment. I suggest to the Committee that it is time that we tested the opinion of the Committee on the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are indulging in an unusual procedure in that we stopped the clock for a little while and I am now confronted with a manuscript amendment simply because the Front Bench opposite slipped up and said "Not moved" to an amendment that it wanted to move. That was a mistake. But they then seek to redeem the matter in this way and to complain that I am trying to take some time over an amendment which they must consider to be important. After all, they have overturned the normal way in which we go about our business. They have submitted a manuscript amendment. They have brought Peers here late this evening—not quite late enough at five minutes to ten —and now I have complaints that I am not dealing in detail with the amendment. It is suggested that I am annoyed because we have been defeated. I am slightly amused at the tactics used to defeat us. That is fine. In another place all these matters were fair game. But I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that you have the wrong sow by the lug in this particular case. In another place I was rather good at explaining in some detail to Members who came late to the proceedings exactly the purpose of the amendment before them.
If and when Members of the Committee come to vote —that is on the assumption that they are not persuaded by my argument against the amendment—they will at least have heard the argument in some detail.
Lord Stewartby: This is an important matter. It seems to me that there is a question of substance. There is also a question of procedure. From what my noble friend says, the procedure is irregular. It would be for

1373
the benefit of those of us who had wind of the fact that an irregular procedure was taking place, and who have now come into the Chamber, to have a succinct description by my noble friend of the reasons why he believes that it is an unusual and unsuitable way to proceed. We can then separately consider the subject matter of the amendment that is proposed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend was perhaps present earlier today when on two separate occasions, at the beginning of business and as we adjourned for the dinner interval, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out that a significant number of amendments had been put down on the Marshalled List in the past 24 or 48 hours in addition to the amendments which had already been dealt with in Committee on Monday. Quite rightly he made the point that noble Lords opposite had felt it necessary to put down a significant number of amendments over the past 48 hours.
I find it a little odd that at this late stage, with all the amendments before us, they have to table a manuscript amendment; and then they complain because I seek to deal with the amendment. The amendment concerns a probationary period of 12 months. I dealt with that matter in relation to heavy goods vehicles. I shall have to check the record but I believe that I convinced noble Lords opposite that their amendment was unnecessary. However, we are back on the subject of a probationary period of 12 months.
The amendment seeks to introduce a probationary period of 12 months. Perhaps I may say a few words on that. As I said a moment ago, we discussed the subject when debating Chapter III which, as noble Lords well recognise, is the chapter which refers to heavy goods vehicles. I shall not trespass on the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, by going into some detail about what heavy goods vehicles are because the noble Lord was present when we debated the chapter.
However, similar arguments apply for public service vehicle operators to those that I put forward in the case of HGVs. Of course we agree that there is a need to monitor carefully the performance of new operators. The existing powers of the traffic commissioners, together with the provisions of the Bill, will ensure that such monitoring can be carried out effectively without the need for a probationary period. Were a probationary period to be introduced it would create a year of uncertainty for operators who are just setting up in new business.
Under the present system, special attention is paid by traffic commissioners to applicants who are new to the business. Most are seen at a public inquiry when the grant of the licence is considered and in some traffic areas they are invited to attend a new operators' seminar if their application is successful. All new operators have their premises inspected within the first year of operation, to check on maintenance facilities.
It is already open to traffic commissioners to take disciplinary action against an operator at any time on the grounds that he has failed to meet the licensing requirements. Under the current system, an operator who falls below the required standard may have his
1374
licence suspended, restricted in scope or even revoked. This will remain the case in the new continuous licensing system.
I contend now, as I contended earlier, that in fact the 12-month probationary period is unnecessary. But Members of the Committee opposite have—
Lord Stewartby: Before my noble friend continues on the point, he has not properly explained for the benefit of the Committee why in this case the point was brought forward in a manuscript amendment. It seems to me that this is a most exceptional procedure. One of the problems which it raises is that the Minister himself and his department do not have the proper time in which to consider it fully and therefore to be able to present a full rational response in a debate at this stage.
Can my noble friend say whether he has been able to establish from the Opposition Benches why the matter is now being raised in the form of a manuscript amendment and why it has the exceptional characteris-tics which allow it to be brought forward in that form?
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can tell my noble friend that the reason we are looking at a manuscript amendment is simple. Members of the Committee opposite wanted to discuss Amendment No. 197B. It is clear that that is what they wanted to do. Unfortunately, somehow they got their crib sheets mixed up and when the Deputy Chairman read out "Amendment No. 197B", they said, "Not moved". We then went on to Amendment No. 197C. The problem was that that was not the amendment that they wished to discuss. An adjournment was called. I have explained about the question of stopping the clock. An adjournment took place and consideration was given to the matter. The manuscript amendment, which is an amalgam of Amendments Nos. 197C and 197B, has now come before the Committee. Of course I do not wish to be accused of unnecessary delay—
Lord Peston: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene for a moment. I entirely accept what the noble Lord said—one did bungle the thing and he has no need to doubt that. I shall not ask why. The fact is that, as I understood it, the Government then accepted that we would proceed in this way. Is the Minister now saying that we should not do so? Bearing in mind that my reading of the manuscript amendment corresponds precisely with what the noble Lord read out at great length from his brief, the manuscript amendment corresponds exactly to what the noble Lord was prepared for. The notion that he was suddenly taken by surprise in this I find far-fetched.
What I am concerned about is the waste of time. If the Government propose that we abandon all this, I can live with that. If that is what the Government want to do and to say, "Let's pack it all in because you have got it wrong", we can survive that. But what I will not tolerate is this constant harping on it as though we had behaved badly in any way, because I do not believe that we have behaved badly. We have played according to the rules. We happen to be winning for the moment and the Government cannot bear to find that they will not get

1375
into the next round and not qualify for the semi-finals. It is a great difficulty for the Government, but they have to recognise what has happened.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peston, ought to discuss with his noble friend Lord Howell the whole question of playing to the rules. Indeed, they have played to the rules and they did very well in the first half. The second half is not going quite so well, so they are beginning to shout "Foul!" Perhaps I may warn the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has already shown me the yellow card twice. He has promised me a red one next; but he might be getting the red one before I do.
However, to come to the details, as I explained earlier, I do not believe that the probationary period is a good idea. I have already explained and discussed that. I can assure Members of the Committee that the traffic commissioners are already obliged to take into consideration any offences relating to road transport when determining whether an operator is of good repute. Such offences would include the illegal parking mentioned in paragraph (a) of the amendment. As regards noise and disturbance which are mentioned in paragraph (b), local authorities have the power to deal with environmental matters, including noise nuisance, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
My problem with paragraph (d) is that it is very unclear what is meant by,
"the extent to which the PSV operator voluntarily complies with best safety practice".
"Best safety practice" would be very difficult and interesting to define. The Committee will have noticed that noble Lords opposite thought so little of the importance of this amendment that they moved it in a minute and a half without explaining it. I suggest that that is not an adequate way to deal with a matter as important as this.
I have explained and I hope clearly argued the case that the traffic commissioners already have sufficient powers to act on these matters. Probationary periods are
1376
not needed. I therefore hope that noble Lords opposite will withdraw this amendment. If they do not withdraw it, I invite my noble friends to vote it down.
Lord Howell: In view of what the Minister has just said, and recognising the fact that he has not in any way dealt with the purpose of paragraph (d), which unfortunately arose from the loss of 12 lives in a school bus accident and the great anguish that was caused to the parents. The manner in which the debate has now proceeded—I do not particularly blame the Government; I have already apologised once from this side —is most regrettable. But we are concerned about the safety of young children. I think the best course now is to accept the Minister's advice to withdraw the amendment at this stage and return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the manuscript amendment.
Manuscript amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Suspension of licences]:
[Amendment No. 197D not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clauses 52 to 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Disqualification of PSV operators]:
[Amendment No. 197E not moved.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at nine minutes past ten o'clock.

  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, PROTOCOL 11
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, PROTOCOL 11
  WEU: ASSOCIATE PARTNERSHIP
  WEU: ASSOCIATE PARTNERSHIP
  NATO: PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
  NATO: PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
  WOMEN'S REFUGES
  WOMEN'S REFUGES
  PRISONS: HIV/AIDS
  PRISONS: HIV/AIDS
  PRISONS: DRUGS
  PRISONS: DRUGS
  GIBRALTAR AIRPORT
  GIBRALTAR AIRPORT