Sitting of 3 March 1997

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

    Heritage Sites
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to encourage more people to visit important heritage sites. [16695]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): My Department, principally through the Historic Royal Palaces agency and English Heritage, is continually striving to develop its historic properties to make them more attractive and accessible to visitors.
    Mr. Brazier: I welcome the England's Christian heritage programme of the Department, and I urge my hon. Friend to visit St. Augustine's abbey site in Canterbury, where much national lottery fund money is being invested in the 1,400th anniversary celebrations of St. Augustine's arrival in this country. I urge my hon. Friend to stress to his officials and to English Heritage the importance, when developing a monastery site, of showing its purpose and work, from prayer to alms giving and health care, rather than simply engaging in endless portrayals of dress, life style and so on.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend kindly invites me to visit the museum at St. Augustine's abbey, which is to be opened on 25 May by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I should very much like to be present on that day, if that is possible. My hon. Friend asks me to make sure that the Christian element of cathedrals, churches and so on is well demonstrated. He makes an important point, which I shall draw to the attention of Sir Jocelyn Stevens.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister set up a Thames estuary initiative? There are numerous heritage sites on the estuary in Kent and in my county of Essex which are undervisited, although they are rich in our history and heritage, especially in relation to the defence of the United Kingdom. I refer especially to the two forts in Tilbury in my constituency, one of which is owned by English Heritage while the other is managed by the local authority. They would be greatly appreciated by many visitors, both from within the United Kingdom and from north America and Australia.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman takes an admirable interest in defence matters and defence heritage matters. I
    608
    shall certainly look at the two places that he mentions; if he would like to talk to me about how we might best promote them, I shall gladly meet him.

    Sport (Young People)
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action she is taking to encourage young people to participate in sport. [16698]
    Mr. Sproat: The Government's sports policy document "Sport: Raising the Game", which was published in July 1995, sets out our strategy for encouraging young people to participate in sport. It particularly emphasises the importance of maximising sporting opportunities for young people within and outside formal education. Significant progress has been made in taking forward the various initiatives in the past year and a half. I made a detailed announcement of progress to the House on 14 February.
    Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome answer. We in Somerset were delighted when Huish Episcopi secondary school received a grant of nearly £50,000 for a national lottery multi-sports complex project, costing £80,000 in all. Is that not precisely the way forward, and does my hon. Friend agree that it will encourage young people in Somerset and beyond to pursue sport with excellence?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The award for a multi-game complex was welcome, and I hope that many other schools, local authorities and communities will take encouragement from the success of that application and apply. The Sports Council for England now has a £2 million bid fund to which schools and local sports clubs can apply to improve the links between local sports clubs and local schools.
    Miss Hoey: Is the Minister aware of the crisis that is looming over the future of the Crystal Palace national sports centre? Is he also aware that, in relation to encouraging young people into sport, Crystal Palace has a two-pronged purpose? First, it is the only indoor training centre in London and, secondly, it is the only place in the whole of the south of England where we can have international and domestic competitions. Is he aware that there is a real worry about what has been happening to Crystal Palace and how that will affect the future of those schools that use it as a facility for pupils? The Minister should be spearheading the drive to find a way forward between Bromley council and the Sports Council.
    Mr. Sproat: I am aware of that concern. It is an important issue. The Sports Council is looking this minute at how best to solve the problem so that that part of England does not lack the sort of facility that Crystal Palace provides.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Given the obstacles in the way of sports being developed in as many schools as we would like, does my hon. Friend agree that the connection between sports clubs and schools is crucial, and that fresh efforts should be made to persuade schools that they should link with local clubs to open up more opportunities for young people?
    Mr. Sproat: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, not least because one particular sport that we have in

    609
    common, cricket, is still played in only 50 per cent. of state schools in England—a poor percentage, which I wish to see increase. My hon. Friend should draw the attention of all the schools and local clubs in his area to the benefits of the lottery for such schemes, and in particular to the £2 million challenge fund that the Sports Council has for promoting links with local schools and local sports clubs.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree that the best way of encouraging young people to participate in sport is to allow as many of them as possible to watch those sports on television? Will he therefore take the opportunity to congratulate the Scottish Rugby Football Union and other rugby football unions, which have signed a long-term deal with the BBC for the benefit of the development of the sport, rather than for greed, so that matches will be shown to the widest possible audience? Is it not a matter of great regret, certainly to him and to me, that two years from now, when France meets England again at Twickenham, the match will be seen by only a small minority of the population?
    Mr. Sproat: I am happy to congratulate the Scottish Rugby Football Union, not only on its decision, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but on the tremendous result on Saturday in the match against Ireland. I also congratulate the Irish and Welsh rugby football unions on a decision that showed that they had the interests of the sport at heart. None the less, I would not criticise the English Rugby Football Union for anything that it may do, because it is up to sport itself to decide what is best for sport.

    Film Industry
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the total earnings of the British film industry. [16699]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It is estimated that British films and co-productions earned £39 million at the United Kingdom box office and that UK film companies earned £495 million abroad in 1995. Now that British films and talent have won 30 nominations for the 1997 Oscars, the prospects for increased earnings are excellent.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I thank my right hon. Friend for those extremely encouraging figures. Does she agree that the large number of academy award nominations received by "The English Patient" and "Secrets and Lies" is further evidence that the British film industry is going from strength to strength, and will she join me in wishing those films and all the other British contenders every success on Oscar night?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Undoubtedly, the success to which my hon. Friend refers demonstrates the strength of the British film industry. Our studios are full, films are made here by companies from all around the world, audiences are up and investment is up. That is because we have an economy that is friendly to enterprise and to initiative and that allows people to keep the benefits of their success.
    Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State will be aware of the numerous film productions in Wales in recent years,
    610
    including some exciting developments in recent weeks. Is she aware that, whereas in Scotland there is a Scottish film production fund, which helps to develop indigenous film producers and to extend the range of films that can be produced in Scotland, we do not have quite the same facility available in Wales? Will she examine that matter to maximise the benefit that this promising industry can bring to the economy?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I have taken an extremely serious approach to the film industry. I established the Middleton committee, which made 11 recommendations. We have acted on eight of them. The Arts Council's recent initiative with the franchise is part of that overall strategy. I shall certainly speak with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the British film industry's production rate is at its highest for some time, with some 127 films going into production. Does she agree that the lottery money recently allocated to the industry will encourage it? What other steps is she taking to continue this success story?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all that he has done to champion the film industry over the years. Last week, I was able to visit the British Film Commission at Berkhamsted to see its work and the archive, which has recently benefited from an additional £13 million of lottery money. We have been using a range of measures, which are set out in the Middleton report, to promote the industry further. We are now looking at the definition of a British film. Above all, what the industry needs is to be able to have the rewards of its endeavours, a flexible labour market and low non-wage labour costs. The Government's strategy, quite apart from the Department's initiatives, is delivering just that in Britain today.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best British films of the past few months is "Brassed Off'? It is about a mining community where the pit has shut and the community has been destroyed as a result of the Tory Government and where the pit band is trying to find enough money to continue playing. Is it not pretty clear that a lot of people on the Wirral saw it, because they were brassed off last week?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I much appreciate the hon. Gentleman making that point. One of the things that has given me most pleasure as Secretary of State for National Heritage has been meeting many of those involved in brass bands which are now receiving lottery awards. Indeed, there have been 91 awards for brass bands; the Easington colliery band, which was the first brass band I met when I became a Minister nine years ago, now has new instruments as a result of the lottery.
    More significantly, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that many communities that faced great difficulties because of the loss of jobs in the mining industry now have more jobs in the new sectors, many of them related to the cultural sector and the major regeneration that has resulted from my Department's initiatives.

    Lottery Grants (Charities)
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to what extent the revised criteria for national lottery grants will support the work of British charities providing emergency medical relief in the developing world, with special reference to Merlin; and if she will make a statement. [16701]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Charities based in the United Kingdom and working overseas, including Merlin, were eligible to apply for a grant from the National Lottery Charities Board under its international grants programme. In framing the priorities and policies for the programme, the board consulted British charities and voluntary organisations working overseas. Their view was that funds would be best spent in supporting long-term development to help people to help themselves, rather than on emergency provision, for which there were other sources of funding.
    Miss Lestor: In view of the declining aid budget, the effect of the lottery on small charities and the fact that the requirement to plan nine months in advance makes it difficult for organisations such as Merlin—which is, as the Secretary of State said, an emergency relief organization—should not the criteria be changed to include, say, training for staff, the stockpiling of medicine and the provision of infrastructure? That would enable such organisations to qualify for lottery money, and exclude them from the nine-month criterion. Will the Secretary of State consider that proposal?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady will be aware that these precise decisions are matters for the charities board. I think that it will examine the £25 million of the first round to see what lessons can be learned, but I commend it on the fact that almost £500 million has been allocated in virtually 7,000 awards. I am pleased that some charities about which the hon. Lady is concerned have benefited. I believe that the Red Cross, for example, has had about 12 awards; Oxfam, too, has received an award, and I know that it hopes for a substantial award in the new round. I wish Merlin well and greatly respect its work.

    Anglers
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the number of anglers in the United Kingdom. [16703]
    Mr. Sproat: The National Rivers Authority commissioned a national angling survey in 1994 which concluded that there were 3.3 million freshwater and sea anglers aged 12 and over in Great Britain.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given that angling is clearly the most popular participatory sport in the country, why did it receive a miserly £72,500 of development money from the Sports Council last year? Why was angling not even mentioned in its list of the top 22 sports? In the light of their appalling record, will the Government give a commitment to match Labour's commitment to oblige the Sports Council to give more assistance to angling for its administration needs?
    Mr. Sproat: The amount that the Sports Council gives in grant to angling or any other sport is a matter for the
    612
    Sports Council. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that £500,000 from the national lottery and £100,000 from sportsmatch have gone to angling. He will be further aware of the Government's record of improving river quality, ending the problems caused by saboteurs through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and reviewing predatory bird and other measures, which shows our commitment to the popular sport of angling.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that country sports in general, and angling in particular, are enjoyed by a wider cross-section and by more people than any other sport in the country? Does he agree that the last thing any of them want is Government interference?
    Mr. Sproat: They quite like Government money from time to time. None the less, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most pleasing aspects of the past few months has been that the three bodies representing game, coarse and sea angling have come together for the first time, and the Sports Council will be keen to help.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) is absolutely right about the fact that anglers are furious with the Government for ignoring their legitimate claims to recognise angling as a major sport? Is it any wonder that the president of the National Federation of Anglers wrote to the Prime Minister to bemoan the fact that the Government had no policy on angling, in contrast with the Labour party, which has a clearly defined charter for angling? The NFA president concluded by stating the obvious—that anglers are coming to the view that Labour cares about angling but the Government do not. Will the Minister, at the very least, dissociate himself from those in his party who claim that Labour will ban angling after we win the general election? Furthermore, on behalf of the Government, will he match our firm commitment to the sport?
    Mr. Sproat: In anticipation of some major exaggeration of the contents of Labour's so-called charter for angling, I reread its few pages this morning, and I was surprised by how little it said.
    I mentioned earlier some measures that the Government have undertaken. We have also abolished non-domestic rates for angling riparian owners—a measure that was welcomed by the angling community. That underlines the fact that the Opposition are basically hostile to country sports, and that no angler who wants his sport to be maintained should be so foolish as to vote for the Labour party.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the worst threat facing angling is Labour's policy to give an unrestricted right of access to riverbanks, canal banks and lakesides, which would make the management of fisheries impossible and would destroy the opportunity for anglers to enjoy their sport quietly?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right: the Labour party poses a serious threat to angling, and he has mentioned one aspect of that threat.

    Plymouth Millennium Fund
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received in respect of the Plymouth millennium fund. [16704]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Millennium Commission, of which I am chairman, has received representations from the Port of Plymouth, the West Country tourist board, the Plymouth marketing bureau and five individuals on Plymouth 2000 Partnership's bid "Plymouth Waterfront—A Celebration of Discovery". The bid is still under consideration. The commission is always pleased to receive representations on a project, whether supportive or otherwise. Representations are one of the key criteria used in assessing applications for funding.
    Mr. Jamieson: Does the Secretary of State accept that, because it reflects the area's maritime history, the Plymouth 2,000 millennium bid is most deserving? Will she ensure that it is considered in its entirety? Will she also clarify the purpose and role of individual commission members in trying to change individual bids?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The commission is looking extremely sympathetically at Plymouth's proposals. Not only the hon. Gentleman but my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) have spoken at length to me about the proposals. Mayflower harbour, Plymouth and the Royal William yard, Plymouth are being considered in particular. I have also had discussions with Baroness Cumberlege, the sponsor Minister, who has been extremely helpful in relation to Plymouth's cause and concerns. Sutton harbour, Plymouth, the national marine aquarium and other projects have already received substantial funding, and I hope that the Millennium Commission can add to the £4.5 million of lottery money that is already being spent on 35 awards in the Plymouth area.

    Individual commission members may have their own views and opinions, but they will simply refer those back to commission meetings, when matters are debated carefully by all the individuals concerned.

    Tourism Grants
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will reintroduce section 4 grants for the tourism industry in England. [16707]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government have no plans to reintroduce section 4 grants in England. Tourism is a highly successful industry and is increasingly making use of many opportunities to benefit from public money. Those opportunities include challenge funding, the single regeneration budget and, in eligible areas, the European regional development fund. Moreover, the national lottery is playing a major role in financing exciting new capital projects, many of which help to encourage tourism and bring widespread benefits to communities across the country.
    Mr. Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, like me, many hoteliers and guest house owners in my
    614
    constituency remain puzzled about why those grants are payable in other parts of the United Kingdom but not in England? Is she also aware that those same constituents very much welcome the fact that, under the National Heritage Bill, funding will now be available for great examples of our national heritage, such as Eastbourne pier?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I know the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents. If the Labour party had its way, there would of course be no coherence in what happens in the different parts of the United Kingdom, and I think that would be very much more alarming. I well recall the visit to Eastbourne pier, and the inconsistency of piers in private ownership being unable to benefit from lottery money, unlike those in charitable or local authority ownership. I am delighted to say that, last Thursday, the National Heritage Bill received Royal Assent. Therefore, my hon. Friend's pier, like other piers in the realm, will now have lottery assistance available when appropriate.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State realise that tourism is rapidly developing in industrial areas such as Lancashire and Yorkshire, and that section 4 and other grants to help the industry develop are very important for their employment prospects and for taking advantage of existing tourism facilities?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Old Labour shows its face once again. Of course a cheque from the centre is always helpful to those who apply, but the Government believe that the reason why we have had the incredible boom in the tourism industry is that we keep taxation and regulation to the minimum. We have been able to boost the many national assets which are such an attraction for people around the world. There is no doubt, however, that well over £1 billion has gone from the national lottery to many massive regeneration projects, such as the Lowry centre and redevelopment of Newcastle's Sunderland glass centre. Across the United Kingdom, city centres are being restored. Only last week, a massive £140 million was awarded to museums, and the key awards were in Manchester. I think that everyone will agree on the awards' importance and significance for the tourism industry.

    "Success Through Partnership"
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what responses she has received to her strategy document "Success through Partnership: A Strategy for Tourism". [16708]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: "Success through Partnership: A Strategy for Tourism", published on 5 February, has been extremely well received. It has received much positive press coverage and we have had many letters welcoming its overall comprehensive nature, its key targets and its specific points for action. Work on the action plan has already begun, both within my Department and elsewhere.
    Mr. Coombs: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that 1995 was a record year for British tourism and that 1996 is likely to exceed that record when the figures are finally available? Does she agree that the proceeds

    615
    of the national lottery are making possible a massive increase in our tourism infrastructure, whether it is the new railway heritage museum in Swindon in my constituency or the new Tate gallery of modern art in the Bankside power station in London? In the context of the development of the south bank, can my right hon. Friend tell the House when we are likely to get a positive decision on the redevelopment of the south bank centre itself?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can confirm my hon. Friend's comments. We have reversed a 10-year decline in our world tourism share. In 1995, earnings from overseas tourism grew by 9 per cent. in France and by 15 per cent. in Spain and Italy. In the United Kingdom, there was 26 per cent. growth, with earnings now amounting to more than £22.5 billion. That is a formidable achievement and I anticipate that next year will be even better.
    I also commend my hon. Friend's comments about investment in many heritage, arts and culture-related projects, such as those in Swindon in his constituency. We want to boost domestic tourism further. The south bank project is another major renaissance of the Thames initiative which will be of lasting value and which will lead up to the millennium year, when we shall see opportunities for our arts, our heritage and our cultural life as never before. Those behind the south bank project, like other applicants, must be sure that they have completed the necessary processes, paperwork and business plan before their applications can be properly considered.
    Dr. John Cunningham: The right hon. Lady forgot to mention that the Government's policy document on tourism had to be withdrawn because it was full of spelling mistakes. It turned out that those who wrote it could not even spell "Prime Minister".
    As there has been considerable reference to lottery funding, will the right hon. Lady explain why about 90 per cent. of lottery grants remain in the bank unspent? Is it not because the matching funding conditions are too onerous even for some of our major national institutions? Does that not mean that, in areas of less affluence, many people are being excluded altogether from successful applications because they have no chance of meeting the matching funding requirements?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Labour party is a great believer in preaching the need for homework to everybody. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman does his own homework a little better. So far, partnership funding has been running at about £1.41 for every £1 necessary; in other words, partnership funding has exceeded expectations. In areas where difficulties may emerge, there is the flexibility for all the lottery distributors to vary the funding required. The Sports Council, for example, will provide 90 per cent. of funding, if necessary; the arts and heritage fund also has flexibility. If money is unspent so far, it accrues interest which then goes to the good cause.
    I will investigate any matters concerned with the tourism strategy. I suspect, however, that the right hon. Gentleman's comments are just another fanciful fairy story invented by the Labour party.

    Arts (Private Sector Sponsorship)
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to encourage private sector sponsorship of the arts. [16709]
    Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has held on promoting business support for the arts. [16711]
    Mr. Sproat: The Government's national heritage arts sponsorship scheme, otherwise known as the pairing scheme, was established in 1984 to bring new sponsors into the arts. It continues to be a great success. To date, it has brought more than £115 million of new money into the arts and more than £37 million of awards matching more than £77 million of business sponsorship.
    Mr. Richards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, although the North Wales music festival attracts widespread support from the private sector, it is continually looking for new sponsors? Will he join me in congratulating North Wales Blue Grass festival—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may laugh, but it is not a festival to celebrate the French victory over England at Twickenham on Saturday. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating North Wales Blue Grass festival on attracting sponsorship from North Wales Independent Press?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I shall certainly join my hon. Friend in doing that. This year in Wales there have been 39 awards totalling £125,000, leading to a total injection into artistic schemes of well over £250,000.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister of State accept a joint invitation to St. Asaph's cathedral, where the North Wales music festival takes place? If he does, he will discover that the cathedral's acoustics are perfect; many of our regional orchestras play there. How can he help the festival, which is in dire need of sponsorship?
    Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation to the festival. I am more than willing to take it up, given that he invited me to the Liverpool Philharmonic a couple of years ago and I greatly enjoyed myself. I shall gladly consider the hon. Gentleman's point about the shortage of funds to see whether I can give advice on how to find help.

    Weekly Lottery Draws
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had with the Office of the National Lottery regarding the introduction of additional weekly national lottery draws. [16710]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: None.
    Mr. Banks: That is a great pity; it shows just how out of touch the Secretary of State is with the way in which people feel about the second weekly draw. Camelot could have used separate numbers for the second weekly draw, but it deliberately chose not to do so. Some 50 per cent. of people who play the lottery use the same numbers, so they are automatically dragged into the lottery.

    617
    Camelot is now talking about a third weekly draw. When will the right hon. Lady get a grip on the matter? This is her last appearance as Secretary of State answering questions on national heritage, and all Opposition Members are very pleased about that, but she still has a few weeks left to get a grip on Peter Davis, the toothless Oflot watchdog, and to try to ensure that Camelot looks after the people who play the lottery, not itself.
    Mrs. Bottomley: There is no question of the lottery being anything other than extremely carefully regulated. Parliament laid down the regulator's duties: he must protect players' interests, ensure propriety and ensure that the return goes to good causes. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman's constituency has already benefited from 13 awards of more than £1 million. In his area of London, another nine awards for well over £1 million are providing regeneration and worthwhile activities and opportunities for the young. So far, there has been no evidence of excessive participation—the average household spends about £2.40 a week, which is much less than a packet of cigarettes. There will be no further activity if it might jeopardise the good name and effectiveness of our very successful national lottery.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I partly support the idea of using a different set of numbers for the mid-week game, but does my right hon. Friend get as brassed off as I do by the moaners and whingers on the Opposition Benches who can see no good in the national lottery? We have the most successful national lottery in the world; it has raised more than £1 billion for good causes, some of which involve small rural activities that have never received grants in the past. At one stage the Opposition wanted to cap the limit on prizes, but they changed their mind when they discovered how successful the national lottery was. Is it not about time that they started to spread the good word about the national lottery and stopped moaning and complaining about it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Good news is always bad news for the Labour party. Its attitude to the national lottery is an example of its endless meddling and tinkering. Labour Members could not bring themselves to support the national lottery on Second Reading.
    Mr. Tony Banks: We did.
    Mrs. Bottomley: No. They sat on the fence and abstained. What we are now hearing is a "united" Opposition who are only too keen to demonstrate that they all did different things—I believe that to be true, and I think that many others do too. They deeply resent Camelot because it makes a profit—they are hostile to success and want to penalise anybody who has made a profit. They said that they would cap the prizes, but now believe that that is unpopular. Most of their suggestions about the lottery look like applications for a Sports Council kite-flying prize. As for the rest of us, we thank goodness that the national lottery was introduced by this Government, that it was this Prime Minister's idea and that it is enormously benefiting the towns and cities of this country.
    Mr. Maclennan: What action does the Secretary of State propose to take to deal with the legitimate concerns
    618
    of the football pools industry about the impact of the mid-week draw on its fortunes and, in particular, on the Foundation for Sport and the Arts? Does she believe that she can save that valuable institution?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I accept the difficulty that many of the pools organisations have had, and it is important to ensure that we can support the various initiatives that they were assisting. However, at a time when £441 million has already been spent on 2,603 awards for sports, we can see that sports in this country are benefiting as never before.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Did my right hon. Friend hear any complaints about the national lottery when she visited my constituency a few Fridays ago, and met business women and some of the ladies and gentlemen who have benefited from the £2 million of lottery money and millennium money that my constituency has received in the past few years?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I enormously enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. I was delighted to meet carers and the group from the nursery class. Last week, I was struck to learn that, apparently, 277 playgroups have already received lottery awards, and as the figures come through, it becomes progressively more exciting to see the difference that they make. Above all, I commend my hon. Friend's youth council. Last week, we launched our "Young people make a difference" strategy, which is intended to ensure that all young people who want to volunteer can do so. There is now up to £500 million available for youth volunteering initiatives, and I also announced up to 130 posts at volunteer bureaux with youth facilitators. I believe that that will make a lasting difference to our young people and our communities, which I know will be extremely welcome to all responsible citizens.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the football world will be deeply disappointed by her response in respect of the Football Trust? The trust's income has decreased by two thirds as a consequence of the huge success of the national lottery in raising funds; that in turn has prevented the essential safety work on football grounds that the public, fans and all those who love our national game want. Is it not clear that there are extenuating—indeed, very special—circumstances, and should she not join the Labour party in our commitment to make up that shortfall with money from the national lottery so that essential ground safety work can proceed?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, Labour Members look for a cloud over every silver lining—they are desperate to look for the downside. If ever anybody had any doubt about how Labour Members would treat the national lottery, they have heard this afternoon that there would be meddling, tinkering and interference. There have been 355 lottery awards for football—never has so much gone into sport and into football in particular. Those of us with slightly longer memories than the right hon. Gentleman will recall that Euro 96 was a spectacular success and that our stadiums are among the best in the world, which had a great deal to do with the Government and the steps that we took to ensure that.

    Popular Music Industry
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the impact of the British popular music industry on (a) British cultural life and (b) tourism. [16713]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: British popular music makes an enormous contribution to the cultural life of the country. Domestic sales rose in 1996 to £1.08 billion, making ours the fourth largest music market in the world. Twenty per cent. of recordings sold worldwide contain a British element. British talent and technical expertise reach hundreds of millions of homes around the globe.
    Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she recall that, in the 1970s, many rock and pop stars left the country because of punitive taxation? Is she delighted that, under the present Conservative Government, the Spice Girls have stayed in this country, and will she congratulate the Spice Girls on winning the best single award in the Brit awards? Was she heartened, as I was, to hear that Margaret Thatcher was the original Spice Girl?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Yes.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Will the right hon. Lady request the national lottery board to keep a better sense of proportion, fairness and, to some degree, equity? How can it reconcile giving £55 million to the royal opera house in London for wealthy pleasure-seekers while refusing substantial grants to the Marie Curie Cancer Care unit, which operates hospices for dying people? The board has given 277 times more in subsidies to the opera than in grants to hospices. How can we, as Christians, given the criteria that have been set, accept the encouragement of the growth of opera houses as against hospices?
    Madam Speaker: That was a very interesting question, but it does not relate to the one that is on my Order Paper. Would the Minister like to make a response?
    Mrs. Bottomley rose—
    Madam Speaker: A generous lady.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was auditioning for next year's Brit awards, but I was going to respond anyway.
    Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, I am pleased that £160 million has been spent on health-related charities; he knows how strongly I felt about that when I first became Secretary of State. However, I believe that he would miss the point if he failed to recognise what an incredible opportunity the national lottery has been for our country, enabling us to invest in our arts, heritage and cultural life.
    Sir Ernest Hall, a member of the Arts Council, said:
    "Through the Lottery we have an opportunity to do for our towns and cities what the enlightened patronage of the Papacy and the Medicis did for the cities of Italy. We can realise Blake's dream of making England, 'an envied storehouse of intellectual riches'."
    I believe that it is a magnificent opportunity. As the Department reaches its fifth anniversary, it can see the way in which it has invested in the initiatives that matter to the people of this country.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Legal Aid (Industrial Tribunals)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on extending legal aid to cases before industrial tribunals. [16725]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): A number of representations on extending the scheme to cases before industrial tribunals and other tribunals were received by the Department in response to the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper on legal aid published in May 1995.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that such a course of action would merely burden the already overburdened legal aid fund, place additional burdens on industry and make job creation more difficult? Will he therefore comment on the interview in the New Statesman with Lord Irvine of Lairg?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend knows that our policy is to bring the legal aid budget under control—to bring an end to its demand-led, runaway nature before any thoughts of applying legal aid elsewhere can be entertained. I was therefore shocked to read the shadow Lord Chancellor's proposals to extend legal aid to industrial tribunals that appeared in the New Statesman in December. [Interruption.] I have it here and can read it if the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) wants me to.
    Every year, 80,000 cases are heard by industrial tribunals. If only half of them were to attract £1,000 per case, that would add £40 million to the legal aid bill. Is it any wonder that the first act of any unlikely incoming Labour Government would be to have a summer Budget to pay for their massive spending plans?
    Mr. Janner: Has the Minister considered what steps he could take to provide aid, legal or otherwise, for himself and his colleagues when they consider themselves unfairly dismissed by an ungrateful but fairly discerning electorate?
    Mr. Streeter: We Conservatives believe in democracy. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman has served with distinction in the House, he has never been very good at predicting the future: he was wrong in 1992 and he is wrong today.

    Legal Aid Reform
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he last met the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board to discuss reform of the legal aid system. [16727]
    Mr. Streeter: I last met the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board on Wednesday 26 February 1997. We reviewed the White Paper reforms, which will cash-limit the budget, set national and regional priorities, dispense legal aid through block contracts with high-quality

    621
    providers, and tighten the means test to weed out undeserving cases. Good progress is being made, but some of these reforms require primary legislation.
    In the meantime, we have reformed the way in which solicitors and barristers are paid, which gives us greater control and will reduce costs. We have set up a special investigations unit to crack down on bogus claims. That is already beginning to bear fruit. We have also introduced regulations to stop legal aid abuse by the apparently wealthy.
    Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, as far as it goes, but I am sure that he is aware that many of my constituents read reports in the tabloid newspapers to the effect that large sums are being paid in legal aid to undeserving people who could well afford to pay. Are there any steps that he could take now to crack down on the abuse of legal aid?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right to press me on this point. Although our reforms are right and positive results and savings from the measures that we have already taken are beginning to emerge, it remains clear that too many cases that should not get it are still receiving legal aid. Accordingly, my Department is now looking at two further areas in which I want to make more progress.
    First, we shall review the use made by the Legal Aid Board of counsels' opinions. We shall explore ways of cracking down on over-optimistic opinions from barristers that lead to legal aid being granted when it should not be.
    Secondly, it is increasingly obvious that many of the cases that cause widespread public concern are decisions by area committees reversing initial refusals by the Legal Aid Board. We shall explore ways of bringing area committees more into line with public concern and common sense.
    Mr. Boateng: What action does the Minister propose to take to deal with the grotesque imbalance between public expenditure on civil legal aid for ordinary, hard-working, honest taxpayers, and on criminal legal aid for those who are convicted of crimes yet are required to pay nothing towards the cost of their defence? Is it not time to recognise the fact that, under the Labour Government, about 80 per cent. of households had access to civil justice, whereas under this Government that number has fallen to 49 per cent.? Is it not time to return access to the courts to the ordinary, hard-working British people?
    Mr. Streeter: Once again the hon. Gentleman appears to be calling for a change in the rules that will enable more people to claim and more money to be spent by the Government. He is a big-spending member of the Labour party—I do not mean just his suits. He does not seem to realise that the Government cannot spend money that they do not have. If we are to spend more, we must tax more. This is old Labour in a new suit: tax and spend.

    Legal Aid Costs
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment
    622
    he has made of the per capita cost of the legal aid programme relative to those for similar programmes in other EU member states. [16728]
    Mr. Streeter: None, but it is widely believed that our legal aid system compares favourably with any in the European Union.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend could not provide me with the actual figures. If he could, I believe that they would show that this country is more than generous with legal aid compared with other European countries.
    I wish to press my hon. Friend on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson). What action will he take to target legal aid precisely—with particular reference to the area committees that he mentioned earlier?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend will know that the White Paper reforms that we announced last year and the measures that I announced this afternoon will do exactly what he asks: target resources where they are most needed. It is now clear that the fact that our legal aid system is as comprehensive as any in the European Union can be added to the good news of rapidly falling unemployment compared with our European competitors, to demonstrate that life is better in a Conservative Britain.

    Legal Aid Budget
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his plans to control the legal aid budget. [16729]
    Mr. Streeter: The Government have embarked on a radical reform programme to control the legal aid budget. We are committed to taking the reforms forward through consultation and piloting, and some key changes will require legislation. My hon. Friend will have heard the additional measures that I mentioned some moments ago.
    Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. He is obviously aware of the great concern about the amount of legal aid money that is being spent on those who could afford legal representation from their own funds. Will he confirm that, when looking at the system, he will also look at the dubious circumstances in which some community law centres purport to operate? He will be aware—I have raised the matter with his Department in the past—that the Charity Commission has expressed grave concerns about some of those law centres, which, effectively, act as a front for the Opposition.
    Mr. Streeter: I shall now look even more closely at the law centre problem that my hon. Friend rightly raises with me. It is important to get the balance right in our legal aid reforms. We are committed to helping those who need help to gain access to justice, but we must ensure that the taxpayer is not overburdened. It is disappointing that the Labour party does not support our proposal to introduce a cash-limited legal aid budget. I described it as an expensive locomotive to which we seek to apply the brakes; I have no doubt that, under a Labour Government, it would become a runaway train.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Am I correct to assume that the Minister has just announced two completely new

    623
    policy initiatives that would have the effect of denying legal aid to some of my constituents on very low incomes? What really matters, and what is winding up the public, is how it is possible for very wealthy people so to organise their private affairs and assets that their declarations to the legal aid authorities effectively amount to fraudulent applications for money and legal aid. Ministers should concentrate on those areas rather than tighten up the criteria through little sly deals that deny my constituents on low incomes proper legal representation.
    Mr. Streeter: I am sorry but, once again, the hon. Gentleman is badly out of date. We have already taken the measures necessary to close the door on legal aid abuse by apparently wealthy individuals. I referred earlier to the special investigations unit that we set up many months ago, which is now bearing fruit. It is beginning to work and we have closed that door. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken; not a single constituent of his with a genuine legal issue who should be supported by the taxpayer will lose out as a result of our reforms. We are closing the door on abuse on behalf of the British taxpayer.

    Civil Dispute Resolution
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy towards alternative dispute resolution in civil justice; and if he will make a statement. [16730]
    Mr. Streeter: The development of alternative dispute resolution in all its forms has broadened consumer choice in dispute resolution. ADR can provide a more appropriate way to settle many disputes where the parties do not need recourse to the coercive powers of the courts. My party is doing all that it can to encourage ADR.
    Mr. Jenkin: Would not one method of reducing the legal aid bill be the provision of more avenues to ordinary individuals to settle disputes—such as those between neighbours or between small businesses about debts—using an adjudicator rather than going through the full courts process? Will my hon. Friend and his Department do everything possible to ensure that those avenues are more widely available?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Under the Woolf proposals, it is our intention to put alternative dispute resolution at the heart of civil justice. He will be interested to know that we produced a booklet last year entitled "Resolving disputes without going to court" to alert potential litigants to the possibilities of ADR. Last May we also set up a pilot scheme based in the Central London county court for all cases in which claims exceed £3,000 and we are monitoring the results of that carefully. There is no doubt that ADR has a large part to play in the British civil justice system.

    Criminal Justice Costs
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans his Department has to reduce the cost to public funds of those aspects of the criminal justice system for which his Department is responsible; and if he will make a statement. [16731]
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans his Department has to reduce the cost to public funds of those aspects of the criminal justice system for which his Department is responsible; and if he will make a statement. [16734]
    Mr. Streeter: A number of initiatives are under way in my Department to reduce costs. They include the radical proposals for legal aid in the White Paper entitled "Striking the Balance", steps to reduce delay in the courts, such as the introduction of plea and directions hearings in the Crown court, and a review of time limits in the magistrates courts. In taking forward those initiatives, care must be taken to balance the many conflicting interests of those involved in the criminal justice system.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituents would be rightly concerned that the legal aid budget doubled between 1990 and 1995 to £1.4 billion, and is due to go up yet again this year? Can he assure them that those who are in real need will get legal aid, and that we will get more value for the pounds that are spent?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right. We want to ensure that those who have genuine grievances have access to justice, but we want to get the balance right between their interests and those of the taxpayer. All our reforms are shaped to that end. I believe that they are right and that they will make a significant difference to the legal aid budget as they are rolled out.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the greatest uncounted costs in a criminal justice system is delay, which wastes so much of the time of witnesses and, in particular, of the police, who can ill afford it? Will he therefore welcome the consultation paper issued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider ways of speeding up justice, including the possibility of ending the right of jury trial for some defendants?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the important statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary last week. We will seek the views of people in Britain about those major, radical proposals to reform our criminal justice system. Again, it is a matter of getting the balance right. I believe that our proposals have a great deal of merit, and we look forward to the consultation process.

Information Technology (Government Strategy)
3.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): Last November, I laid before Parliament the Green Paper "government. direct" (Cm 3438) setting out the Government's strategy for the electronic delivery of central Government services. This strategy forms part of the Government's information society initiative led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology, and complements our policies to promote the use of IT in business, in education and by the public at large, and to help this country adapt to the information society. Today I have placed in the Library, and it is available in the Vote Office, a paper reporting on the results of consultation on the Green Paper and indicating the way forward to a radical change for the better in Government service delivery.
People interact with Government daily, whether they are applying for vehicle and driving licences, complying with regulatory requirements and filling in Government forms, or paying taxes. "Government. direct" envisages a time when people will no longer have to queue up, fill out paper forms and send off cheques for Government licences; instead, they will be able to link directly into government through their television sets or from kiosks in post offices, libraries and shopping centres.
Services will be more accessible, more convenient, easier to use, quicker in response and less costly to the taxpayer. As the Cabinet Minister responsible for public service, I find the prospect of delivering services electronically direct to the public enormously exciting.
This initiative forms part of the programme of public service reform, which has already established the citizens charter, next steps agencies and the deregulation initiative as a means of raising the quality of services and making them customer-driven.
Reaction to the Green Paper has been substantial and positive, with nearly 300 responses. I am pleased to say that they show broad support for our intentions, particularly our determination that the initiative should be truly cross-governmental and customer-centred.
However, concerns have also been raised. Some suspect that our aim is not to raise the quality of service but simply to cut costs, or to create a huge central database on individual citizens. Such fears are groundless. There are also concerns about data protection and about potential marginalisation of the disadvantaged and the disabled. I assure the House that we are determined to find solutions on data protection, and we are equally determined that electronic services will benefit everybody.
Last year, the Government launched "IT for all" in order to raise public awareness of, and provide wider public access to, information and communications technologies. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced plans to redirect the millennium fund towards information and communication technology projects. After 2001, this could enable institutions such as citizens advice bureaux and public libraries to provide help to access electronic services for those who lack the confidence or opportunity to use a public access terminal.
In taking our plans forward, we have three objectives. First, we will build on the Green Paper by continuing the dialogue with those who have made substantial
626
comments, such as the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and Justice. We will explore with universities how we can best draw on their creative thinking, too. We will work closely with the Data Protection Registrar to produce data protection arrangements that command public confidence.
Secondly, we will give the general public an opportunity to try electronic service delivery for themselves through pilot schemes. Some have been launched already. Others that I expect to see launched in the next few weeks will: first, enable the citizen to use one electronic form to tell several Departments about a change of employment status; secondly, bring citizens charter information to electronic terminals in the high street; thirdly, bring electronic services to the rural post office; and fourthly, allow Internet access to large Government geographical and geological databases. More will follow. The views of the public on pilot schemes will be sought and recorded through market research, and the results will be published to inform the debate.
Our third objective is to begin to plan the full-scale implementation of "government. direct", drawing on what we learn from our discussions and the pilots. As soon as we are able, we shall lay a White Paper before Parliament, setting out our plan for implementation, including any legislation that may be needed. We expect to rely on the private sector to lead in the development of technology and to provide the capital investment necessary to be repaid by savings in central Government service delivery costs.
As the Minister reponsible for public service, I shall work with colleagues across government to take this initiative forward, with the support of the central IT unit, which was set up just over a year ago in the Cabinet Office, with people drawn from the public and private sectors. I would particularly like to thank ministerial colleagues who are participating in the programme of pilots, and private sector sponsors such as BT, Electronic Data Services, ICL, Intergraph and Microsoft, who have shown commitment and imagination in their support for the programme.
This information technology initiative will help, for example, the pensioner at the rural post office to check his or her income tax, and the parent in the urban high street to compare the performance of local schools. It will lighten the burden of government on the small business man, and it will help those seeking work to sift job vacancies. It will make dealing with Government as easy as the supermarket laser checkout or the bank cash machine. It is government made easy, and made easy for everyone. If the take-up of electronic services follows the pattern of that for cash machines, five years from now, 25 per cent. of simple Government transactions with the public could be electronic.
Our plans for the use of information technology to provide services in a fundamentally different way will have radical and welcome implications over the long term for the size and shape of central Government. I commend our plans to the House.
Mr. Derek Foster: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I welcome his initiatives, and thank him for the courteous way in which he deals with all such matters. However, the earlier Green Paper and today's statement bear all the marks of a last-gasp technology gimmick from the party of the past.

627
Why was Al Gore able to present the four-year record of achievement in September 1996 while the Government were still pussy-footing about with a discussion document? Have the Government not betrayed citizens already, by failing to harness user-friendly technology to make government more accessible?
Have not the Government already sold business short by failing to exploit information technology in scything through red tape? How will the right hon. Gentleman avoid a new, dangerous split between the information haves and the information have-nots? Is he not aware of the danger of citizens' personal data falling foul of Big Brother Government or private sector cowboys bent on a quick buck? Why does he not beef up the Data Protection Agency to counter that threat?
Why have the Government headed for the hills over the £22 billion millennium bug issue? Why has the right hon. Gentleman ignored repeated warnings that it could be the next BSE-style crisis to hit government? Have not his Government been ducking and diving on the real issues, leaving the next Government to clean up the mess?
Why do not the Government come clean with their staff by publishing their own estimate of job losses, for example? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to involve staff as partners in the management of such a profound change? Where are his staff training and development proposals? How much Government cash has been earmarked for the investment? Have the Government instead, as we all expect, thrown themselves entirely at the mercy of the private sector? Does not the statement demonstrate a failure of imagination and leadership from a failed Government, breathing their last after the humiliation of Wirral, South?
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks—at least at the outset of his series of questions. I shall deal briefly with five of them.
First, we are spending at the rate of £2 billion a year in central Government on information technology: a very substantial part of total Government running costs. The Government have not been afraid, either Department by Department or centrally, to use modern information technology. Our response represents a radical step forward in the use of IT to the benefit of our citizens.
As to the difference between the information haves and have-nots, the right hon. Gentleman is right. It is very important that manual systems are continued in parallel with the use of modern information technology, so that those who are not familiar with or do not have an opportunity to use modern IT can use the existing paper-driven system for as long as that is necessary. I have already said that I hope that the citizens advice bureaux will play a full part in this radical revolution of the way in which Government services are provided, by facilitating services for citizens who cannot or do not wish to use them directly.
On third-party access to data, it is very important that the Data Protection Agency and the registrar herself are satisfied about protection against illegal and improper third-party use. There is no difference between the two Front Benches on that.
I turn to the millennium bug: the prospect that some computer systems will fail in 2000, because 20 or 30 years ago, when the software systems were written, planners
628
never assumed that the hardware would last that long. My hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology has laboured long and hard to ensure that the private sector is aware of its responsibilities, and we have jointly ensured that all Departments must by the end of this year have drawn up plans, and by the end of next year implemented plans, to protect the public against any faults.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I published a White Paper last year on civil service training and development, which made explicit reference to the need for developing computer skills. I congratulate the civil service on embracing those new developments with great alacrity.
Sir Trevor Skeet: If I understand my right hon. Friend the Minister correctly, his statement is about using technology to make more information available on Government services on a 24-hour basis. Will it be a precursor of new developments? Will he be a little more specific on cost? He indicated the amount of capital expenditure going into IT at the moment. Although the proposal concerns only a very tiny part of overall expenditure, what will be its expenditure effect on the Government?
Mr. Freeman: One of the principal benefits of modern information technology is that information can be supplied to the citizen 24 hours a day, seven days a week; not just when the office is open. That principle of not only accessible but open government is extremely important.
No one knows what the cost will be, because we must test, pilot by pilot, whether the citizen wants this information service to be delivered electronically. It is important that Government do not dictate. The citizen knows best what is needed, and the private sector will lead with the development of technology. I confirm that we expect the private sector to make the initial capital investment. All our conversations with the private sector lead us to believe that that will certainly be the case.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy accept that, although this interim statement on the transmission of Government-held information is important, so far as open government is concerned, it would carry greater conviction if it were accompanied by a freedom of information Act based on the presumption that Government-held information should be made available to the public, except for certain narrowly specified and policed categories?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the recommendation of Justice, that the supervisory and enforcement powers of the Data Protection Registrar should be strengthened? Is it his intention that terminals should be available in rural areas, particularly sparsely populated areas, where it is difficult for people to get to Government offices or other centres to obtain the information to which they are entitled?
Mr. Freeman: Our code of open government, which applies to civil servants and Ministers alike, presumes that information, analysis and explanation of decisions should be made available. I believe that the use of modern information technology will make government more open,

629
not less: information will not be confined to the filing cabinet. A freedom of information Act would make no practical difference to the range of information that should be open to citizens.
The code encourages civil servants and Ministers to work on the presumption that information should be available except in narrowly drawn circumstances. Most countries follow that practice, and I believe that it would have broad support in the House. The exceptions involve secret intelligence and diplomatic relations with other countries. The presumption is openness of government, and our reforms will enable that principle to be more widely applied.
As for the comments of Justice on the status of the registrar and the law, we shall have to consult on that, and that process has only just begun. I am sensitive to the point made by the hon. Member.
Yes, terminals should be available throughout rural areas. Modern technology knows no geographical or time boundaries. We are carrying out a trial in a rural post office in Devon to find out how citizens react to the availability of a computer terminal to supply information that would otherwise be available only by expensive telephone or by paper.
Mr. Gary Waller: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement. Will he, in turn, join me in congratulating the Editor of the Official Report, Mr. Ian Church, on the award he received from the Campaign for Freedom of Information for the parliamentary web site on the world wide web, which had encouragement from and the enthusiasm of the Information Committee? How long will it be before motorists are able to renew their vehicle excise licence and pay the duty by using a kiosk in their local library or from a PC in their own homes?
Mr. Freeman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his Committee's determination to introduce modern technology into the workings of Parliament. A great deal can be done, and I welcome the arrival of Hansard on the Internet. My hon. Friend raises an interesting prospect with regard to car tax. Our vision is that, instead of queueing at a main post office or corresponding by mail to renew our car tax, it should be possible to do so entirely electronically.
With the approval of Parliament, central databases could confirm that a car has passed the MOT test and that a valid certificate of insurance has been issued. An electronic signature—a credit card-sized mechanism—could validate that a person is who he says he is, and a car tax disc could be issued immediately.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many demarcations and restrictive practices that grew up in the former age of information collection are simply irrelevant and crippling in the modern information technology age? The common register of businesses, for example, is not available, because, although the component parts—company registered offices, and so on—must be published, the data are compiled with the use of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise powers. That means that the product cannot
630
be available. Do the Government propose an overhaul of the legislation relating to the main streams of Government information to make that information publicly available?
Mr. Freeman: I believe that we should rethink the divisions between Departments, laterally and radically. I feel, for instance, that the distinction between the Customs and Excise, Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue in the collection of moneys due from the citizen to the state can be drawn more simply, transparently and openly. But the permission of Parliament, given through statute law reform, will be needed for the comparison of data held by different agencies—and, indeed, for the transmission of data between Departments.
As I have said, a radical rethink is needed if we are no longer to rely entirely on the circulation of paper between Departments. We can transfer data between Departments for the convenience of the citizen, but only with the permission of Parliament.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I envy my right hon. Friend his sense of excitement, but will he consider for a moment the most important aspect of contact between the citizen—the subject—and Government: personal contact between one person and another? The depersonalisation that is implicit in much of what my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon will not be welcomed by everyone. Does he recognise that a real danger is implicit in the codifying of every sort of communication, and in the eventual replacement by a hole in the wall of the Government counter with someone behind it?
Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend's vision fills me with horror, but there is no inconsistency in using modern information technology to replace the post office, the fax machine or, perhaps, even the telephone. I want to speed the flow of information, but I do not want information to be depersonalised.
One of the biggest criticisms that can be made by the citizen and, indeed, Members of Parliament of reforms made since the war is that such depersonalisation has taken place. Sometimes we need a face—a person to talk to. I do not mean a face on a video conference screen; I mean people talking face to face. I believe, however, that these reforms should permit a sufficient reduction in other clerical and running costs, to facilitate an increase in personal contact rather than the reverse.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, without a strong commitment from the Government in terms of money, his statement is so much rubbish? There is no indication that enough money is available for training, and there is certainly not enough for the provision of hardware.
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the Department of Transport being able to issue any kind of document, he will be aware that not enough money has even been written into the Department's budget in this and coming years to provide for the information technology that is necessary to run it. Will he examine the American experience, which shows that change of this kind is important to young white males, and will he come back and tell us how he intends to change that with real cash?
Mr. Freeman: We are spending real cash. We are spending £2 billion a year on IT projects in central

631
Government, and I do not propose a significant increase. I am telling the House that, just as the Government use the Royal Mail to transmit paper between them and the citizen, so we can use information technology. The fact that, rather than the Royal Mail supplying paper, the private sector is supplying hardware and software, has no financial impact on the Government. Someone else is providing the investment and the service and Government pay for that, but they pay on the basis of usage rather than capital investment.
Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his willingness to have an open session with the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, involving people from industry as well as Members of both Houses, was much appreciated? One of the issues raised was crime. As many of the challenges posed by crime in the 21st century will be information technology-related, does he accept that, as well as receiving information, there is a unique and special opportunity for the public to give information through kiosks and eventually by way of television, and that that would help in the fight against crime?
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to what the all-party Parliamentary Information Technology Committee has so far achieved. I look forward to working with PITCOM. My hon. Friend spoke about crime. It is not just the exchange of information that has to be regulated and regularised, where necessary by Parliament, but the efficiency with which different arms of the law work.
One thinks in particular of the probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and the police. We have different computer systems, and they should be compatible. One of the main aims of the central direction of investment, or at least advice on how Departments should spend money, is to make sure that different computer systems are compatible, so that information can be exchanged electronically.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that, while this will give the Government great power to carry on their Big Brother technique and to find out about the man in the street, the man in the street will not be able to find out where the Tory party gets its money?
Mr. Freeman: I have already explained that the initiative is not about creating greater powers for the state in relation to individual citizens. There is no question of a Big Brother, whether socialist or Tory. The ordinary citizen would not tolerate that, and nor would Parliament. Therefore, any plans for the dispatch of data between Government Departments or even involving third parties, which is not contemplated in our plans, that will assist the citizen, have the citizen's approval and are protected by law, should surely be welcomed.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that he has announced for the electronic delivery of Government services, and I welcome his comments about personal contact. Will he confirm that the CCTA, which is based in my constituency, has been involved with the

632
"government. direct" initiative, and will be involved in future in terms of the announcement and electronic delivery?
Mr. Freeman: I am happy to confirm that, and I pay tribute to the work of the CCTA, which started life as the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency about 25 years ago. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in support of the CCTA. It is a valuable resource of experience and advice for all central Government Departments, and I hope that its work expands.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that many of the initiatives that he would like to promote are already happening and well advanced? Is he also aware of the Cambridgeshire Childcare Links project, which was launched by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) at Hinchingbrooke school in the Prime Minister's constituency a few weeks ago? That service aims to provide for parents who wish to return to work information on child care, jobs and training and social security benefits.
Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he is prepared to co-operate with Cambridgeshire Childcare Links to provide helpful benefits information that will allow parents interactive access as to their entitlement to benefit?
Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly pass that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I am well aware of the hon. Lady's support for local services in Cambridge. Not long ago, I had the pleasure of launching one such service in Kettering.
Mr. Mark Robinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that personal contact will not be replaced by some sort of virtual reality system. Will he assure the House that there will be efforts throughout the civil service to ensure that the process to simplify guidance and instruction about how to apply for benefits will be continued, to ensure that it is compatible with this new information technology era?
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I emphasise again the importance of personal, caring and, in some cases—when it is to do with, for example, the Child Support Agency or the national health service—compassionate and understanding assistance, which is by no means incompatible with being a civil servant. That is what the House would expect—that personalised, proper service—and it must be against a background of regulations that are simple and written in the Queen's English.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Minister accept that the history of the Government's involvement so far with large-scale information technology contracts is one of poorly defined contracts, large-scale expenditure, cost overruns and poor performance? Will he therefore assure the House that, if he proceeds down that road, it will be on the basis of carefully costed and piloted projects, which produce genuine improvements of service to ordinary people?

633

Will he also assure the House that his proposals are not a device for undermining the Royal Mail and the network of the nation's 20,000 post offices?
Mr. Freeman: It is certainly not our intention to undermine the Royal Mail, but I am glad to see it progress with the development of its own services; it should be congratulated on that. However, there are other ways in which Government Departments can communicate directly and in which the citizen can communicate with Government and vice versa. In the same way that Government embrace the quill pen and the letter, so we should embrace information technology.
I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of relying on properly costed pilots. For the past 50 years, all Governments, of whichever shade, have sometimes had projects that have overrun and been badly thought out. Others have been a great success—I am talking about information technology now. We must learn from that experience. That is why I propose a programme that is cautious. It tests what the citizen wants and what is feasible, pilot by pilot; and substantial money, committed either by the private or by the public sector, should not be given until that has happened.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is to be particularly congratulated on harnessing the unique expertise of the Government communication agency with that of the big players in IT, and that that will deliver quality services in a way that will be beyond the imagination of many people—and, if I may say so, in a way that seems beyond the imagination of the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster)? Is this not another move that shows that the character armour of this Government is open government and good-quality services to customers, whereas the character armour of the Labour party is rotten public services and secrecy?
Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend was a distinguished junior Minister serving in the Cabinet Office, and he will know that it is extremely important to think long term and to have a strategic vision about how to deliver services better to the citizen. It is incumbent on all of us as Ministers to ask: what does the citizen want, how should the service be delivered, and how can we harness modern technology? I am sure that you would agree, Madam Speaker, that Parliament and even Whitehall sometimes appear to be still in the 19th century in terms of their procedures, whereas the private sector has welcomed with open arms 21st-century technology. Government should do likewise.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: With the caveat of the Government's failure to move on the question of freedom of information, may I unreservedly welcome the statement, which is enlightened, points the way forward and, in many measures, reflects Labour policy, which goes down effectively the same route?
In that spirit of camaraderie, may I draw the Minister's attention to Cumbria county council's application to the Millennium Commission in relation to the Genesis project, after several years of work by me in my office here, on the university of the Lakes project, and the
634
county council's own work? The Minister referred to the commission in passing when he said that it was considering IT bids more sensitively. Our application on the Genesis project is in exactly this area of IT transfer, and is being dealt with by the commission over the next few days. Will he put in a good word for us, because we want to win the bid and to show the whole country that we can make this system work in Cumbria?
Mr. Freeman: I will make sure that the millennium commissioners are aware of that. It is important that local government should be involved in this initiative, and I have made sure that the central IT unit has talked to local authority associations to find out how we can trial some projects in their field of responsibility, too.
Mr. John Whittingdale: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but will he bear it in mind that it is only in the past 10 years that pupils have been educated in the use of information technology, and that there is widespread technophobia among those who did not learn about computers at school? Does he agree that adult education colleges will have an invaluable role to play in providing courses to help overcome that problem?
Mr. Freeman: There are some technophobes in Whitehall, as there are in Parliament; perhaps people over the age of 40, or perhaps even 30, might constitute the greater number. My hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is doing exactly the right thing. He has launched "IT for all", which is aimed at familiarising those members of society—young and old—who find it difficult to comprehend how to use modern information technology. I greatly welcome his initiative, which I know will succeed.
Mr. Barry Jones: Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's "vision thing", will he accept that many millions of our fellow countrymen and women will not be excited by his statement? Will he consider my elderly constituent, Mrs. Williams of Pentre, who, when she goes into the post office, will be intimidated by his vision? Is not the timing of his statement somewhat gimmicky, in view of the imminent general election?
Mr. Freeman: No, that is not a fair charge. I have tried to present a sensible and balanced conclusion of two years' work. Frankly, anyone looking back at reports of the proceedings of the House will, I am sure, find that the Government committed themselves to large-scale use of the Royal Mail and that a number of hon. Members, and perhaps their constituents, were afraid that they might lose the communications. We must embrace modern technology; the private sector does, as do many Governments around the world. Given his background, I hope—indeed, I know—that the hon. Gentleman will not be counted as a computer Luddite.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Was my right hon. Friend as disappointed as I was that those on the Labour Front Bench were so backward in welcoming the announcement, especially as the Leader of the Opposition got into such a mess when he announced a deal with BT? Is the right hon. Gentleman perhaps worried that BT will spend its money on this scheme rather than leave it for Labour's windfall?

635
The piloting of schemes is clearly important, to see whether people will use high-street kiosks. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has any announcement to make in that regard about the bid that I have made for my constituency to be one of the pilots.
Mr. Freeman: I am sure that we shall be involved in several dozen pilot schemes in the coming months and years. It is sensible to test precisely what the citizen wants and whether the technology works. I am sure that my hon. Friend will persist in his demands. His comments about Government and Opposition underline a central point: unlike the Opposition, who have the relative freedom to announce an idea, the Government have to examine it, consult on it, test it, think about it and then produce their response. They do not have the same luxury as the Opposition.
Mr. Andrew Miller: The Minister will be aware of my support for his view of the benefits that information technology can bring to cross-departmental activity. Against that background, will he explain, first, what steps he is taking to ensure that the allocation of contracts, especially in the context of privatisation, are not overly concentrated with one company or another? Secondly, will he say whether he agrees with the European Informatics Market, whose board includes a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House, that there ought to be primary legislation on data protection as a result of the European directive and of changes in technology? Finally, even with eight weeks to go until the general election, I would prefer to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box rather than a hologram.
Mr. Freeman: Clearly the Government must implement the European directive—we have about 12 months to do so—and we are urgently considering the form in which it should be implemented. There are a number of options, and several Departments are involved. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about monopolies by individual IT suppliers. This must be watched, as we do not want several Departments to be reliant on a single supplier of hardware or software.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Millennium Commission was unable to approve the bid by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for a linked computerised system which would have greatly assisted the association in providing information similar to that which we are discussing? In that context, can he say whether it will be possible to place "government. direct" computer terminals in the association's bureaux?
Mr. Freeman: I share my hon. Friend's disappointment at the fact that the NACAB was not successful in its millennium bid. I very much hope that it will qualify for assistance from a redirection of the Millennium Commission's funding after 2001. We are trialling the provision of IT in one citizens advice bureau in Spennymoor in Yorkshire—[Interruption.] I do not know my geography. Modern IT would have corrected my statement that Spennymoor is in Yorkshire, and made it County Durham.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just a few years hence,
636
political historians will look back to this day and say, first, that it was a landmark day, and secondly, that the Labour party was a group of Luddites? Labour criticised my right hon. Friend's announcements and doubted his integrity in communicating with private companies. Does he agree that it is marvellous that, on this very day, the Cable Communications Association has announced that schools will be able to give access to the Internet to all their children for just £1 per child per day?
Mr. Freeman: The House will welcome not only what BT has done, but what the cable companies have done in terms of supplying modern IT to schools. The more primary and secondary schools that are connected, the better.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the statement, but a problem during the past five years has been that every hon. Member has been inundated by people whose lives have been wrecked by the inflexible computer technology and bureaucracy of the Child Support Agency. What worries me is that the very people who want to come into contact with government—an old-age pensioner at a local post office, a distraught ex-wife trying to get a CSA payment or a young labourer thrown out of work—are the very people who find it difficult to cope with these systems.
At the same time, government is being fanned out increasingly to agencies, there is a lack of parliamentary control, and all agencies are now required to have strict performance guidelines. I fear that, whatever my right hon. Friend has said, we will have fewer humans facing the public and more computers providing more inflexibility and bureaucracy, with the result that more people will be denied their basic human rights.
Mr. Freeman: I am sure that my hon. Friend is wrong. He referred to the Child Support Agency, which I am afraid has, in its past practice, relied on several different sources of information. Computers have not been talking to computers—in other words, those affected by the legislation have received conflicting information at different times, without having someone to talk to personally. In a number of cases—particularly where the work of the agency has been removed to remote parts of the United Kingdom—ordinary citizens have been unable to talk to someone about their problems. We can and should embrace modern information technology without depersonalising it. Frankly, we can reduce, not increase, bureaucracy if we do it sensibly.
Mr. Fabricant rose—
Madam Speaker: I will allow the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) to make a point of order to correct what he has said.
Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful, Madam Speaker—you have anticipated my point of order. It was a slip of the tongue; the charge would be £1 per pupil per year.

Packaging Waste
4.14 pm
The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I beg to move,
That the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
I must first apologise that the Secretary of State is not present, but, as I am sure hon. Members are aware, the Environment Council is meeting in Brussels today and tomorrow. However, his absence gives me the opportunity to speak on the subject. As I chaired the Environment Committee's inquiry into recycling, it is a real pleasure to be associated with an issue that has been a matter not only of controversy but of considerable fascination for entire industries and for many pressure groups.
I should start by putting the regulations in context. We need to obtain better value from our waste, in the interests of the environment, of United Kingdom competitiveness and of the consumer. That is the central objective of the Government's waste strategy. Our strategy, however, is particularly relevant to packaging waste.
Each year, we create 8 million tonnes of packaging waste, and—although it is the largest recyclable element in each of our dustbins—about 2 to 3 million tonnes of it goes to landfill. That practice is simply not sustainable. We cannot continue to divert ever more of our countryside to providing more landfill capacity. Landfill generates methane, which is a major contributor to global warming. Moreover, I think that all hon. Members know that the process of finding and planning new landfill sites is extremely difficult. I am particularly aware of that difficulty, because it is covered by one of my ministerial responsibilities.
Above all, it is important to harness the long-term economic benefits available from treating waste as a secondary raw material rather than simply as a costly liability. Therefore, the system that we are proposing has two principal objectives. The first is to implement the Government's challenge on producer responsibility for packaging waste. The second objective is to enable the United Kingdom to implement recycling and recovery targets in the European Community directive on packaging and packaging waste.
The producer responsibility challenge is about using the market to deliver an environmental objective, and requires that the price that the consumer pays should reflect a contribution to the costs of dealing with a product as waste. Producers have obligations to recycle and recover waste in proportion to the number of goods that they place on the market. In packaging, that obligation would create an incentive, first, to minimise the amount of packaging needed for the purpose; secondly, to ensure that one reuses packaging whenever possible; and, thirdly, to find more efficient and cost-effective methods of recycling and recovery—for example, by finding new markets for recyclate.
Broadly, by 2001, we are aiming to double the amount of packaging waste—paper, glass, plastic, steel and aluminium—that we recycle or recover. We are currently achieving about 30 per cent. recovery of packaging, and we need to increase that to 50 per cent.—the minimum
638
target set by the EC directive. As the United Kingdom has relatively little waste-to-energy capacity, we expect most of the recovery to occur through materials recycling.
Our initiative will bring real benefits to local communities, local authorities, voluntary bodies and everyone concerned with recycling. By 2000, we aim to have convenient and close-to-home recycling facilities for eight out of 10 households—in some cases through new kerbside schemes, and elsewhere through a big expansion in bank systems. The principal means of achieving that goal will be through collective business schemes, of which the prototype—Valpak—is well advanced. Valpak reflects a substantial commitment by more than 100 leading businesses which have subscribed to its start-up costs.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is not there a concern in the industry—which the Minister must have heard expressed very loudly in the past couple of months—that Valpak is okay, but that it is not yet up and running properly? It seems that some of the key players, especially those in the retail sector, are already leaving the Valpak framework, thereby threatening it. Unless those retailers can be persuaded to come back into the scheme and to support it strongly, it will not be possible to secure the objectives desired by the Minister, by myself and by everyone who is interested in the subject.
Mr. Jones: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying; it is important to keep the retailers on board. There is every incentive for them to stay on board, because they could not deliver their part of the recycling targets on their own. They have to work co-operatively with someone. In view of the administrative overheads and the need to have the system up and running, it makes much more sense for them to stay in the Valpak framework, or whatever alternatives come forward, rather than to try to go it alone.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have no doubt that the Minister has received correspondence from the Paper Federation. One thousand jobs in my constituency are wrapped up in the industry. The federation says that although it supports the scheme and wants it to work, it is worried that if things go wrong, there will not be an adequate review procedure. The federation says that it cannot necessarily wait two years if employment in the industry generally is being threatened. Can the Minister say something today that is helpful to the industry and which reassures it that the Government, of whatever persuasion—obviously my own people have views on these matters as well—will keep an eye on the industry and on employment within it, to ensure that the scheme is working properly and is not damaging areas of it?
Mr. Jones: This is pioneering legislation, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman and the industry recognise. It is extremely important, therefore, that we keep the matter under close review and if necessary, make alterations. That is why the review process, about which I shall say something later, is part of the overall package. The hon. Gentleman talks about a period of' two years. He should remember that we are talking about 1998 and that we are already almost three months into 1997. Bearing it in mind that 1997 is the year for the collection of statistics and

639
notification, the review of the operation will occur early on. That is a reflection of the fact that we know that we are breaking new ground.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Will the Minister, on the central point of this debate, address himself to the key issue? Contrary to the agreement that seemed to have been reached on 15 December 1995, the regulations will permit retailers to use transit packaging arising in their own back yard, to meet their obligations. That will increase the pressure on other packaging industries upstream and will undermine the viability of Valpak. How does the Minister justify that?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman must have missed what I said about retailers a moment ago. Retailers cannot fulfil their obligations simply from their own back yard packaging. They do not have packaging arising in all the categories that we are talking about, so they could not meet all the targets. The hon. Gentleman said that that was the key point of the debate, but I believe that there are a number of key points. If I can make a little progress, I shall highlight them. I believe that one of the main points of the debate is to ensure that we do not go down the road that some other countries have traveled—particularly the Germans—of creating a monster that is environmentally damaging as well as extremely costly.
I was talking about Valpak. Perhaps I should also tell the House that there is a second scheme, aimed at the dairy industry, called Difpak, whose members have recently announced their intention to proceed. Such schemes are run entirely by business. Any business that joins an approved collective scheme is entirely exempt from the regulations, as long as the scheme achieves the aggregate recycling and recovery obligations of its members. I hope that the House agrees that that is a substantial encouragement to join a business—run scheme.
The regulations impose three main obligations. First, there is a registration obligation: businesses must register with one of the environment agencies and must provide packaging data by 31 August 1997 at the latest. In other words, they must choose whether to carry out their obligations individually or to join a collective scheme. Secondly, from 1998 onwards, there is a recovery and recycling obligation. Businesses must take reasonable steps to recover and recycle specific tonnages of packaging waste, which are calculated to take account of the amount of packaging flowing through, the function that they perform in relation to the packaging—that means, for example, whether they convert packaging or fill packaging—and the UK targets, which are 52 per cent. recovery and 16 per cent. recycling for each material by 2001.
Sir Jim Lester: Some small companies are concerned about whether they might be discriminated against if they do not join one of the major schemes. Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no difference of approach in regard to individual companies that seek to register on their own and those that choose to do it together?
Mr. Jones: That is true—the smallest companies are exempt from the regulations, although the slightly larger ones will be caught as the phasing comes in. I can confirm that if people want to go it alone and create their own
640
scheme to recover their packaging, they will be free to do so, provided that they do it effectively. If the business is in a scheme, the scheme carries out the tasks.
Thirdly, there is a certifying obligation. Businesses and schemes must certify annually that they have recovered and recycled the required tonnages of packaging waste.
The Environment Agency, in England and Wales, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will monitor compliance with the regulations and will have enforcement powers comparable with those that they exercise in relation to their other responsibilities. Businesses following the individual route will need to pay a registration fee to the appropriate agency of £750, while schemes will pay a fee in relation to their membership.
The primary purpose of the regulatory regime is to discourage free riders. Industry told us clearly that that was a basic requirement if the initiative was to succeed. It is therefore important that the enforcement role of the agencies is credible and effective. Much of the agencies' effort will be devoted to education, promotion and assisting industry, but enforcement will be necessary. A public register of businesses and schemes will list all those who have registered and who have self-certified performance of their obligation.
The agencies will also have an important role in relation to data—aggregating information from businesses, to provide a more accurate national picture of how and where the 8 million tonnes of packaging is created. That role also responds to an important industry request for much better data, which are essential to ensure a fair distribution of obligation, as well as to ensure that the United Kingdom is on course to achieve its targets.
I now refer to small businesses. While we have accepted the industry's request for a shared approach, many people have also accepted that it is neither efficient nor profitable to place an obligation on every business, such as the 200,000 or so small shops. The regulations therefore apply initially only to businesses with a turnover of more than £5 million. We estimate that 4,000 businesses with a key role in the packaging chain will be affected. In the year 2000, the threshold will drop to a turnover of £1 million, and we estimate that 9,000 businesses will be affected, including wholesalers who, from that year, will pick up the selling obligation of the small shopkeeper. We believe that large and medium-sized businesses are best placed to ensure that the system is up and running as smoothly as possible.
One of the key features of our approach is that it is based on recycling and reprocessing, not simply collection. If we briefly consider what has happened in Germany, the advantages of our approach become clear. The German householder has five separate dustbins; each German household is served not only by the municipal collection lorry, but by a separate lorry run by the Duales System Deutschland—DSD. The two are not co-ordinated, and there are extremely high targets for recycling and recovery.
The consequences are well known: in its early years, the German system was collecting vast quantities of waste, for which it has struggled to find a use. Today, there is still a significant trade in exporting plastic waste, often with a dowry, to third-world countries, where reprocessing is a euphemism for environmental degradation. The current cost of the German approach is £1.7 billion per annum—an approach that we have wholeheartedly rejected.

641
When the Select Committee, under my chairmanship, published its report on recycling in 1994, we drew particular attention to the issue. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote from the press notice that launched our report:
"On the subject of recycling targets, we recommend that the aim of local authorities and other bodies should not just be the collection of recycled material. Collection should be viewed as the first stage of the recycling process; it is equally important to develop market demand and adequate processing capacity. We believe that this should be taken into account by the Department of the Environment and the European Union in the formulation of policy, in order to avoid the surplus of collected material as resulted from the German DSD scheme."
By contrast, we have taken great pains to build our approach on the views of business, and we have harnessed the expertise of those with practical knowledge of the industries involved. That is the basis for the regulations. By allowing for business choice, they provide the stimulus of competition. By providing for business self-assessment and self-certification, they offer a deregulatory approach to monitoring and compliance. By providing for exemption for an approved business compliance scheme, they encourage business to develop cross-sectoral co-operation, efficiency and incentives. By focusing on the reprocessing end of the cycle, they ensure that we do not collect material that cannot be used and that the full range of businesses involved have an incentive to find new markets for recyclate.
Mr. Sheerman: I and most people who know anything about the subject would agree with the Minister about not wanting to go down the German track, because we do not want that sort of bureaucracy, but at least in all the other systems that I have seen, there is a regulator who conducts audits and checks that the recycling is being done. Is the Minister sure that the Environment Agency has the capacity and the ability to check, audit and control?
Mr. Jones: I have every confidence in the Environment Agency, which does a good job in respect of all its responsibilities. I have never heard anybody suggest that the agency is incompetent in this respect. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comment about not wanting to go down the German route—that contrasts with the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who, when speaking to the Environmental Services Association not long ago, praised the way in which the Germans operate.
Mr. Meacher: That is a complete falsehood—I have never said that this country should adopt the German method. It is far more expensive per capita, I have never supported it and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before appealing to the Minister, the hon. Gentleman should rephrase the word "falsehood".
Mr. Meacher: I am glad to do so. The Minister would not wish to impute to me something that I certainly did not say.
Mr. Jones: We always welcome conversions on the road to Damascus.
642
For all those reasons, we believe that the costs of the UK approach will be substantially below those of any of our major competitors. We estimate that by 2001, if collective business schemes are successful, annual costs will be at the low end of the range set out in the cost compliance assessment—that is, around £270 million. Furthermore, we believe that those costs should be viewed essentially as transitional costs, necessary to provide improved recycling infrastructure which, as it becomes available, will be readily deployed by industry. Rising landfill costs and greater use of secondary raw materials, with their long-term advantages to the UK economy, mean that, in the long run, costs will fall. A sustainable approach to packaging waste is, in competitiveness terms, a real plus.
Even putting to one side the UK's policy in that respect, I remind hon. Members that doing nothing is not an option. This is an issue of grave concern to UK packaging manufacturers and exporters seeking to trade with member states that have adopted barriers to trade under the guise of environmental protection. It was for that reason that many in the industry pressed us to negotiate a directive that provided a clear single market framework for the free circulation of packaging, while ensuring that each member state met certain minimum recycling and recovery objectives.
We are now using the directive to safeguard UK interests. We and others have formally challenged the Danish can ban, which restricts the sale of beverages to refillable containers—for a local brewery based in Copenhagen, that requirement is easy to meet, but it is a substantial barrier to any UK exporter. We are urgently considering the latest German proposals on refillable containers, which raise similar issues. The notification procedure that the directive requires gives us a real opportunity to challenge such barriers to trade, and it is encouraging that several member states have already withdrawn or modified their proposals as a result of that procedure, or in anticipation of it. However, for the directive to work effectively, we must be confident that we in the UK can achieve the recycling and recovery targets that it sets.
The regulations now before the House are, as I said, based on a number of principles established in negotiation with industry, starting with the producer responsibility group and continuing with other bodies. There are few trade associations with a substantial interest in packaging that have not played a part in putting together that approach. Even more important, many business leaders have given up substantial management time to develop proposals that will make this a success.
Businesses as diverse as Procter and Gamble, Courtaulds, David S. Smith, Tesco, British Glass, British Polythene Industries, Marks and Spencer, Guinness, Coca-Cola and Carnaud Metal Box have given substantial management time and effort. The business leaders who are members of the advisory committee are continuing to help devise solutions to the difficult issues that we have encountered.
Inevitably with such a process, rapid progress was made early on in agreeing the broad approach, but there has been difficulty in the detail and in finding a solution to issues where sectoral interests differ. In that context, I pay special tribute to Sir Peter Parker who, as president of the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, chaired a

643
critical meeting on 15 December 1995, which agreed a formula for the shared obligation and the principles on which the current regulations are based.
However, in a process that involves so many sectors of business, it would be wrong not to acknowledge that there are issues of importance to specific sectors, which remain outstanding concerns. As with any new system, there are fears of the future. Will there be adequate recycling capacity? Will some businesses have to pay much more than others to obtain waste for recycling? Will the ones that hold waste co-operate, or do we need a separate waste holder obligation?
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I entirely agree that it is an important process and that we are still in the early stages, dealing with global and strategic issues, but I have a direct constituency interest—250 jobs hanging, if I may put it that way, on coat-hangers and the production thereof. Can the Minister say yet whether, as in other European countries, fabricated plastic coat-hangers will be exempt from that process, at least at this stage?
Mr. Jones: The regulations do not lay down that degree of detail. They are broad definitions, and it will be for industry, working with the Environment Agency, to ensure that what happens in practice reflects the spirit of the measures that we are placing before the House. I can give the hon. Gentleman what I regard as a commonsense view on that, but I would not necessarily regard it as a definitive view, because plastic coat-hangers can exist for any of several different purposes. They might be sold and therefore be ordinary products, or they might be given away free with dry cleaning or be included with the suit or shirt that one buys in a shop, in which case they are packaging, as cardboard stiffening, pins and so on would be.
As I said, it will be important to answer several questions. One of those is: will all the parties play an equitable part in accessing waste from the domestic waste stream? Another might be: do the activity percentages in the regulations fairly reflect what each part of the packaging chain actually does?
Many of those concerns can be answered only when there are better data and when the system has begun to function. I assure the House that we shall keep a careful watch on the way in which the regulations work in practice and will keep them under careful review, to ensure that nonsenses do not occur. The staged build-up to the directive targets should ensure that no one's burden is unreasonable in the early years. I know that there are some fears, but I hope to reassure hon. Members that some of them are unreasonable.
Mr. William O'Brien: I join the Minister in paying tribute to Sir Peter Parker for the work that he has done in bringing us to this stage.
Does the Minister envisage a conflict with the advisory council or within the industry? He mentioned shared responsibility, but he also mentioned the market. It is difficult to see how we can have shared responsibility in a market scenario. Is the Minister aware of any anomalies or problems in such a situation?
Mr. Jones: I believe that, in the various parts of the chain, the shares have been sorted out very much along
644

market lines. If, subsequently, it turns out that those shares are different, or if technology brings a different perspective to our debates on the matter, that too may change. I have learnt in politics the essential truth of the philosopher's question, that only one statement is true at all times and in all places
"And this too shall change."
Nothing is set in stone; nor should it be.
It is important to reassure those who have expressed some of the more unreasonable fears. One of them relates to the relative size of the retailer obligation, and to whether retailers will be able to meet their obligations from their own waste. Let us consider a large household name retailer. The obligation laid down by the regulations for such a business is likely to be for between 100,000 and 200,000 tonnes—in other words, between 3 and 5 per cent. of the entire United Kingdom recycling and recovery obligation will have to be met by that one business. It will have access to waste in its own back yard, but that source is unlikely to supply much more than half its needs. It will have very little of some of the materials that it needs, such as glass, aluminium and steel. In short, the largest players in the retail and pack filler sectors have large obligations, and will have no alternative but to co-operate with others, either in a scheme or in some other way, to satisfy the obligation.
As I said, ensuring that the regulations generate a successful UK initiative on packaging waste will be a process of dialogue for the Government, the agencies and business. There will inevitably be issues that need to be reassessed in the light of experience. That is why the Government have given a clear commitment to supporting the work of the advisory committee in carrying out a thorough review of the system once it is in operation, and to considering any recommendations that it makes. The work load of the committee for the review is already being mapped out. We are happy that it should look at issues of perceived inequity, such as the situation in the construction industry, and the proposal that all business users of packaging should be required to sort and separate waste.
For their part, the Government have pledged to keep under review the need for the regulations. As the amount of recycling increases, I have no doubt that we shall be able seriously to consider reducing their scope. Many businesses have written to me on this point, and I am certain that, whatever their concerns, given all that we have discussed and negotiated, the overwhelming majority of UK businesses want to adopt the regulations now. That message has also emerged from what has been said here today.
I also have no doubt that if success is to be achieved, it will come only by working with the market and with the businesses that are most closely involved. As the Secretary of State has said, the market is the only force powerful enough to deliver the objective of sustainable development. I therefore have no hesitation in asking the House to approve the regulations.
4.41 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: I wish to make it clear immediately that the Opposition—soon, no doubt, to be the Government, if Wirral, South is anything to go by—strongly support the principle of increased

645
recovery and recycling of packaging waste. However, the issue has been handled by the Secretary of State in a manner that can only be described as shambolic.
At the outset, the right hon. Gentleman failed to take control of the issue and tried to hive off all responsibility to the industry. Given the diversity of business interests involved, that led, not surprisingly, to protracted wrangling and uncertainty. Then the right hon. Gentleman tried to reconcile the differences at the notorious meeting of 15 December 1995. If the Minister thinks that agreement was reached then, I have to tell him that there is still a great deal of disagreement about what is supposed to have been agreed on that occasion. Even after that, the calculation and assignment of legal obligation remains extremely complex and an unnecessary burden on business. Contrary to what the Minister said just now, we cannot even be sure that the terms of the European directive can be met.
The regulations that are now finally being introduced are more than eight months late, beyond the European Union deadline, following repeated delays. The statutory guidance that is so essential to the technical implementation of the scheme has still not been produced. The whole handling of the regulations has been a masterpiece of muddle, mismanagement and market excesses.
The fundamental flaw, as many in the industry have said, is that the principle of shared responsibility, which the Government purport to endorse, is incompatible with the free operation of market forces, which the Minister ended his speech by praising and which the Government certainly encourage.
At the 15 December meeting, it was clearly accepted and laid down that the share of the legal obligation attributed to each sector would correspond roughly to the share of the overall cost of recovery and recycling that each sector would bear. That key principle breaks down if those who have substantial obligations for packaging supplied to domestic consumers—that is, the retailers—can discharge a large part of their obligation by recovering and recycling commercial and industrial waste supplied to them by UK packers and fillers for which they have no producer responsibility obligations.
It would be wrong to say—I am not saying it, contrary to the Minister's assertion—that retailers can evade all their obligations in this way. I readily accept that retailers have the largest obligation, at 47 per cent., but it is a reasonable estimate—confirmed to me by the industry—that retailers can discharge as much as two thirds of their obligation by this means. Thus, they will be able to limit their share in the cost of the obligation to recover and recycle used packaging from the household waste stream to about 15 per cent. of the total. It is difficult to see how that can be a fair allocation of "shared" responsibility. It is in clear defiance of the third principle of the 15 December agreement, which is:
"Each sector must play an equitable part in relation to the domestic waste stream".
Moreover, that produces a series of other distortions elsewhere in the packaging chain. It will put many companies, particularly small and medium ones, at a serious competitive disadvantage—to answer an earlier Conservative intervention. They produce or supply the
646
transit packaging, but because they are prevented from gaining access to it, they will have to discharge their obligations by recovering other, more expensive, material. Figures shown to me suggest that the wholesaler could face a cost of compliance of up to two and a half times as much as his retailer with an equivalent turnover.
For the same reasons, the regulations will make it less likely that packaging chain members with large quantities of non-obligated transit packaging will join in a collective or shared approach. That will undermine the viability of Valpak. Some major retailers, Tesco for one, have already made it clear that they will not participate. That will burden multi-material collective schemes, which are supposed to be the Government's preferred approach, with more difficult-to-recover materials and thus increase the cost of achieving compliance for their members. That in turn will generate a large cross-material subsidy between paper and other materials; some have estimated that it could amount to as much as £45 million a year. That will seriously disadvantage the paper industry.
It is surely evident that what is wrong with the regulations is the fact that the Secretary of State wanted to have his cake and eat it. He wanted, for reasons of party dogma, to leave it all to industry to decide and to wash his hands of any direct involvement or display of leadership.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: We have made it abundantly clear that we want to work with industry to ensure that it evolves a scheme of which it feels it has ownership. We do not want to go down the German road. I know that the hon. Gentleman is about the only person left on the Labour Front Bench who openly believes in a command and control economy, but that is not how we want to proceed. That is why we have worked with industry to come up with a decent set of regulations, for which it has a sense of ownership. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an enthusiast for the German system, but it has been disastrous.
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has such a taste for projecting his prejudices and insults that he simply does not listen to the facts. He should not say what I have already clearly refuted. I repeat that I have never supported the German scheme.
Mr. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way. I have never supported the German scheme. Germany's level of recovery and recycling is better than ours, but I have never supported the German green spot scheme. If the Minister suggests that I have, I shall give way to him.
Mr. Jones: I shall quote the hon. Gentleman verbatim from his speech to the Environmental Services Association. He said:
"We accept that a sensible regulatory regime, as in Germany or Japan, will be the best contribution to a thriving sector."
Mr. Meacher: That in no way suggests that we accept the German scheme. The scheme that the Secretary of State has introduced is to be repudiated because it leaves the problem entirely to industry to resolve, with companies quarrelling among themselves endlessly,

647
failing to resolve the problems or to display any leadership. He should have introduced a sensible regulatory regime that listens to industry but in which the Government then make up their mind in the light of their consultation with industry. That is certainly how we would proceed.
When the shared responsibility approach was finally decided on—it is unique to the UK and has resulted in a complex and previously untried set of legal arrangements and obligations—the Secretary of State went along with it. When that approach was then distorted by the exercise of market powers by certain sections of the industry, he tamely assented to it. That is why this whole exercise is now in such a mess. It is all due to the right hon. Gentleman's abdication of responsibility and chronic lack of leadership.
In two months' time, the Government will be swept away. They may be swept away by a landslide, but they will certainly be swept away. In view of the mess created by the regulations, I want to make it clear that things cannot simply be left as they are or merely referred to the Advisory Committee on Packaging for consideration during the two-year review. That would not be sufficient. If we were to do that, we would entrench cherry-picking, undermine Valpak and other multi-sector schemes, and weaken the shared approach. It would also make it almost impossible for many obligated companies to use the individual compliance route. The Government have insisted that that route be kept open so that the field is not tilted in favour of exemption schemes, but unless something is done, individual compliers will find it almost impossible to obtain the necessary reprocessing certificates, except at prohibitive prices.
Another difficulty if things are allowed to remain as they are under the regulations is that there is no plan to ensure that the necessary collection, storing and reprocessing capacity is available to meet higher targets in future years. That problem has now been made more acute by the standstill over the past year while industry waited to see exactly what obligations the Secretary of State would impose and by his recent increase in exemptions to the £5 million turnover threshold. The effect will be a huge increase in the need for reprocessing capacity in a few years' time, which will not be met in advance by market forces.
Basically, we now need a mechanism to ensure that obligated companies, whether individual compliers or companies in exemption schemes, are matched with reprocessers producing recycling certificates. We need a requirement that only such certificates are acceptable evidence of compliance, and that such certificates will be issued only for a company's obligation tonnage in each material for which it has an obligation. The objective of the proposals would be to prevent expensive cross-material subsidy and to prevent small and medium companies being put at a competitive disadvantage by restricting access to their own waste products. The purpose would simply be to restore the pre-eminence of the shared approach principle, in which the Government claim to believe but which they have done nothing to prevent being undermined. It would also strengthen the position of Valpak as a multi-sector scheme, which we should like to consolidate.
I therefore give notice that an incoming Labour Government will seek an early review of the regulations to find the best means of securing those objectives.
648
That is very much in line with the proposals set out in early-day motion 299, which has now been signed by more than 95 hon. Members from both sides of the House.
I appreciate that that is only an interim solution and that longer-term solutions must await a more thorough review by the advisory committee or an equivalent body. Several such longer-term questions need to be asked. First, is waste minimisation being sufficiently encouraged? That is not directly addressed in the regulations, except in the sense that less packaging means less obligation. Secondly, would it be sensible to have a split target—one that maximises recovery of commercial and industrial waste, which is relatively clean and easy to collect—and then add to that a separate domestic stream target? Thirdly, do the regulations sufficiently encourage re-use or positively discourage it?
There are other concerns, too. Hon. Members will know that local authorities have made forceful complaints. They are disturbed that they will be placed in a subordinate position to the private sector, especially where retailers set up rival schemes. The local authority recycling advisory committee has let it be known that retailers will threaten existing recycling infrastructures if they take control of car park schemes and reduce the viability of local collection rounds.
Despite all those substantial reservations about the regulations, I repeat that the Opposition strongly support the general principle of increasing recovery and recycling of packaging waste. Indeed, one might argue that the regulations do not go far enough. Under the regulations, Britain aims to recycle only fractionally over a quarter of our packaging—virtually the minimum allowed under the EU directive. By contrast, Germany—if I dare to quote a more successful country, without necessarily supporting the mechanism that it uses—already recycles more than three quarters, and the Netherlands recycles half.
Furthermore, we need to set targets to reduce packaging. Over the past year, packaging in Germany has decreased by 12 per cent. while in this country, INCPEN, the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, predicted a 4 per cent. increase in food packaging between 1993 and 2000. Despite all our reservations, we do not want further delays in view of the short time scales within which the recovery and recycling targets must be met. Further delays would only increase uncertainty in the industry and further undermine Valpak's viability. We are therefore content to allow the regulations through, but on the strict understanding that they will require urgent review along the lines that I have made clear.
4.58 pm
Sir Roger Moate: That was a rather muddled speech from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). He was on strong ground when he expressed the valid concerns widely held outside the House about the possible advantages to the retail sector, but he spoilt his speech with his extraordinary and excessive abuse of the Secretary of State, and his failure to understand that the scheme has the great advantage—there are disadvantages, which I shall deal with—of having been developed in co-operation between Government and industry.

By expressing criticism, the hon. Gentleman was criticising those many people to whom he also paid tribute. He went on to promise a review, which we all

649
welcome, but the Minister said that there would be a continuous process of review, even before the implementation of the regulations. There are strong points to be made, but the hon. Gentleman was rather muddled, and spoilt the strength of his case.
I am sorry that the debate is to be so short, as it is of enormous importance. I shall try to be brief. The paper mills in my constituency recycle about 1 million tonnes of paper a year, and there is a steel mill that recycles 1 million tonnes of scrap metal every year, so I can claim that we are in the forefront of UK recycling.
Years ago, as many hon. Members who had paper mills in their constituency knew, the paper industry was in decline. In recent years it has become a growth industry. That is because, previously, the industry was entirely dependent on imported raw materials—pulp. Now there has been massive new investment. More than £500 million has been invested in north Kent alone, protecting thousands of jobs and worth billions of pounds to UK Ltd. in terms of import saving. All that has happened because now we have our own indigenous raw material—recycled paper. There has been an industrial revolution, and it is quite an exciting story. It is estimated that the paper industry wants another 2 million tonnes a year to support further investment.
As well as that strong constituency interest, I must declare my interest as parliamentary adviser to the Paper Federation of Great Britain. I am also one of those who believe passionately in the need for the UK to achieve maximum recycling of waste materials—paper and board, glass, metal and plastics—as raw materials for further industrial production. By that I do not mean incineration in large-scale, expensive, subsidised waste-to-energy power stations.
With that belief I, like almost everyone else, warmly welcome the aim of the measure. It might therefore sound churlish to use this occasion to express serious concerns about the regulations. We have been told that we currently recover just over 2 million tonnes out of 8 million tonnes of packaging waste. The target is to raise that to almost 4 million tonnes in about three years. That is an ambitious target. We must find a way of using an additional 2 million tonnes of recycled waste materials. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Minister and with the hon. Member for Oldham, West that we had to avoid the system adopted by the Germans and the massive disruption caused to the market by the green point system. We had to avoid such a radical and sudden change in the system.
It was right to welcome the principles on which the Government embarked—to work with industry to develop a scheme for shared responsibility among all parts of the packaging chain. There should be no cross-subsidy between different packaging materials. The scheme was to be worked up co-operatively with industry. I pay tribute to the work done by the Secretary of State, and to many leaders of industry, who worked extremely hard over a period of years, giving up a massive amount of management time to produce the scheme.
However, I wonder whether all those who worked so hard envisaged the outcome—38 pages of mind-boggling regulations. I do not believe that that is what they had in mind. The Minister told us that 4,000 businesses must
650
comply this year. In 2000, 9,000 businesses will have to comply. A recent survey showed that two out of three businesses are not even aware that the new regulations will come into force. When those business men try to read the regulations, their eyes will not only glaze over, but be double-glazed over, because the regulations are extremely difficult.
Mr. Piers Merchant: Schedule 4 charts the great amount of detailed data required from companies, including the type of packaging. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will put a heavy burden on many companies, and that, in many cases, the cost and complexity of gathering all that information will be greater than that of complying with the VAT regulations?
Sir Roger Moate: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having got as far as schedule 4. As he said, not only are the regulations complex; they are costly. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to a cost of £270 million to £280 million. That is the lowest estimate that I have heard, and it does not surprise me that he should give us the lowest. We have heard other figures, between £300 million and £600 million, and up to £1 billion, as the compliance costs on British industry. Those costs will have to be met by British industry in a relatively short time, so we should not underestimate their seriousness. The scheme might be good value, and better value than other schemes, but we must understand that it will be introduced at great cost to British industry.
There was a meeting at the House in January with representatives of the British Fibreboard Packaging Association. Like me and everyone else, they support the aims of the measure. I quote their summary of the worries expressed by much of industry. They state:
"Our main ares of concern are the burdensome complexity of the Regulations; their high cost; the risk that they will distort historical trade patterns and put UK industry at a competitive disadvantage to its EU counterparts; and, most importantly, that they may even reduce rates of recovery and recycling rather than increase them … Specifically, the draft regulations now allow any business with packaging waste on its own premises to use that waste to meet its recovery obligation at a much reduced cost compared to those businesses which have no waste arising."
It is understandable that such organisations should be concerned, as 75 per cent. of the product that their members manufacture is already recycled.
We also had representations, again expressing widespread concern, from the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents the owners and managers of 11,000 retail shops around the country. They, too, are worried that the cost of the proposals will fall disproportionately on small grocery businesses. People will ask how small shops can handle 50 tonnes of packaging material, which will be the requirement in the year 2000, but it takes only a small volume of glass to reach that level, so a group of shops might well fall in that category. We must take care to tailor the regulations correctly.
Why have all those concerns suddenly arisen, when we have had years to work up the regulations? I think that it is because of the sheer difficulty of translating into reality the splendid idea of shared responsibility. It is easy for a superstore, with masses of cardboard boxes at the back door and bottle banks at the front door, to meet its 47 per cent. obligation. However, a producer of cardboard boxes, who has no waste left on his premises, can discharge his obligation only by paying out hard cash.

651
I think that I am right in saying that about half of the 8 million tonnes of packaging waste ends up with the retailer. That gives the retailer a disproportionate amount of power. It is therefore all the more important that retailers should play a part in the co-operative arrangements.
Part of the problem is that the costs arise because we do not have outlets for all the waste materials. They currently have no market value. We must ensure that industrial demand is created for those raw materials as soon as possible, which would place a higher price on the materials, reduce compliance costs and might then make the regulations unnecessary. In the meantime, we must ensure that they operate as intended. Bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum and everyone in the chain, including the major retailers, should co-operate to ensure that the system works. One estimate is that, under the present arrangements, the paper packaging industry alone would subsidise other packaging materials to the tune of £45 million a year. That cannot be fair.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to assure the industry that the regulations will work as originally intended. I urge him to repeat his promise of a review in order to meet the challenge posed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The regulations must be reviewed before they come into effect to ensure that they will work fairly. We have time: my hon. Friend has said that we are gathering information. Let us use that information to allay the fears that have been expressed. Will my hon. Friend confirm also that he expects the larger retail groups to enter into the spirit of the new Valpak and other co-operative arrangements to ensure that the burden does not fall unfairly on other sectors? Will he reiterate his assertion that the large retailers will not be able to use their surpluses of waste paper materials, such as corrugated paper, to subsidise their obligations regarding other categories of waste materials, such as glass and metals?
I sincerely hope that we shall not create a new, artificial market for waste certificates that is backed up by a large bureaucracy, as occurred with milk quotas. It is absolutely vital that, following the passage of the regulations—we welcome the measure—the new system should be scrutinised constantly to ensure that it leads eventually to a free market solution and not to a costly corporatist burden on British industry and the British people.
5.11 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: Most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate)—particularly the second half of his speech—supported what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said. My hon. Friend said that there must be a partnership between Government and industry to ensure that the regulations are applied equitably and that changes are made if and when they prove necessary.
In Committee, it was intended that the Environmental Protection Bill should empower the Secretary of State to introduce regulations. I submitted an amendment on Report, insisting that the regulations should come before the House before they were applied. It is vital that we debate important issues such as this, but I believe that the regulations have taken too long to come to this place.
The House must approve the regulations if we are to meet the significant and tight targets set by the European Union, of 50 per cent. recovery and 25 per cent. Recycling
652
by 2001. The industry debated loud and long about finding an equitable basis for sharing the legal obligations across the packaging chain, and arrived at a compromise solution at its meeting on 15 December. The industry commenced consultations in 1993. The present regulations are not perfect but, as the Minister said, they must be passed tonight. They are pioneering measures.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for agreeing with most of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), who spoke from his great experience in the paper and board industry. Should not the hon. Gentleman emphasise that we must not distort the market in respect of these regulations? It would be unfortunate if, as my hon. Friend said, certain large retailers were allowed to use their packaging to subsidise other areas of their recycling responsibility. That would have an unfair impact on other sectors of the paper and board industry.
Mr. O'Brien: I made that point when I intervened on the Minister. He assured me that the market shares the responsibility to collect or recycle certain materials within the recovery chain. I therefore assume that the issue has been resolved, and I shall address it only briefly in this debate.
We must ensure that all sectors of the industry have a common goal of minimising the total cost of the national recovery scheme. Agreement was reached on 15 December 1995 regarding the four principal areas of concern in the packaging chain: the packaging raw material manufacturers, the converters, the packer/fillers, and the retailers.
Agreement was reached on 15 December on the basis of a majority; it was not a unanimous decision. Concern has been expressed since that meeting, and it was comforting to hear the Minister confirm that the regulations are not set in stone and will be reviewed as and when that proves necessary. The purpose of shared responsibility is to reduce the likelihood of any one group being able to profit at the expense of the rest, thereby inflating the total cost of the scheme. That concern has been expressed on more than one occasion.
Mr. Sheerman: There is no wicked scenario: companies will make commercial judgments within their sectors. Unless there is regulation to control their activities, the issue will never be resolved fully and companies will continue, quite rightly, to pursue their particular commercial interests. We have a dog's breakfast of regulation because a dog's breakfast is better than no breakfast at all.
Mr. O'Brien: We must establish who will regulate the regulations. I believe that that is the duty of the Environment Agency, but the Minister and the Department must take some responsibility for ensuring that the regulations apply fairly and equally across the industry.
I remind the House that the all-party group on sustainable waste management has held many meetings to consider these issues and has listened to speakers representing all sides of the industry. We must address this controversial matter. The Minister's assurances are

653
encouraging, but we must ensure that he delivers on them. Some packaging manufacturers claim that the regulations are inequitable because retailers and supermarkets may carry an unfair and insufficient share of the obligations. Reference has been made to the involvement of retailers and their ability to use transit packaging, predominantly paper and board, to help to discharge their responsibilities. They could easily use the cardboard boxes and paper packaging in their back-yards to fulfil their obligations, whereas, in many instances, those materials should be returned to the supplier in order to distribute the responsibility fairly throughout the industry. Some of the supermarket chains could offset their responsibilities without joining a multi-material collection scheme.
In an Adjournment debate that I secured on 15 January, I suggested that the number of companies excluded from the regulations must be kept to a minimum and that all businesses, people and commercial undertakings involved with packaging must be encouraged to join Valpak or some such scheme. Time will tell whether the £5 million cut-off point is satisfactory. It must be stressed that the regulations should not be a burden on small businesses and that it will be in their interests to join a collective industrial scheme to ensure that their legal obligations are met. The Minister referred to registration. I think that it would be more economical for small businesses to come together for legal advice and in other situations that could develop in the industry.
It is paramount that all kinds of waste must be included in recovery and recycling principles. I refer particularly to plastic and glass. If we are not careful with the regulations, some businesses might have to pick up the most expensive part of recycling and recovery while others will achieve their targets at the least expense. Wood in packaging will also have to be addressed—if not today, in future. That matter was raised in the Adjournment debate, but it has not been settled. As a matter of fact, we have not yet had an interpretation of packaging. The Advisory Committee on Packaging will have to address that, too. Some retailers may find paper and board easier to recover than other materials, and I hope that the advisory committee will monitor that. It must also ensure that the directive's targets, implemented by the regulations, are achieved in a free-market scenario.
The Minister referred to the legislation as pioneering. There may therefore be some conflict in the application of the directive in the market. It would be helpful if the advisory committee were to publish a report from time to time on how the industry is going under the regulations. Is that within its responsibilities? If so, how often could it publish such reports? Would they be available to hon. Members in the Library or the Vote Office?
If the industry is to achieve its goal, it must do so without imposing excessive costs. Reference has been made to some parts of the industry having to meet excessive costs of £40 million or £45 million. Indeed, packaging recovery in some European Union member states has carried excessive costs. The German scheme has been mentioned. I am advised that, in Germany and Austria, citizens pay about £20 a year in inflated product costs so that certain targets can be reached. That point was made in exchanges earlier. The Government are suggesting a cost to United Kingdom citizens of between £5 and £11 a head a year. If such a target is set,

654
a monitoring exercise must be undertaken to report on progress in achieving it. We should receive progress reports on how the advisory committee is viewing the legislation and the regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who was in his place at the beginning of the debate but had to leave, asked me to pass to the Minister a number of questions from his mailbag. Due to the shortness of the debate, I shall not read them out.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: If I hear from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I shall be delighted to try to assist him in any way I can.
Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that that will meet my hon. Friend's concern. He had to leave to attend a Committee, so I said that I would make the points on his behalf.
I support the regulations, but stress that hon. Members who have an interest in the way in which they work out before the two-year period ends should be provided—if not directly, through the Library—with progress reports from the advisory committee.
5.24 pm
Dame Peggy Fenner: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) has been hearing from small businesses. I have the honour of being chairman of the all-party retail industry group. My hon. Friends will be aware that, under the regulations —the hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to it—retailers have 47 per cent. of the recovery obligations. With the packers and fillers, that comes to 83 per cent. of the responsibility for recovery of packaged waste.
The British Retail Consortium, the Food and Drink Federation and the alcoholic drinks industry have issued a joint statement in support of the regulations. A number of distinguished members of the all-party sustainable waste management group have worked over the years on how we are to survive, given our packaging methods, and how we are to achieve recovery and recycling. Whatever criticisms and concerns are expressed, everybody must support the regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham referred to small businesses in the retail industry. I should like to make two points about them.
I, too, have had correspondence with the Association of Convenience Stores which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham said, comprises 1,500 retail member companies. It supports almost 11,000 local stores and 101,000 employees. The association is very worried that the regulations will be a burden on its members. Although businesses that handle less than 50 tonnes of packaging waste a year or have annual turnovers of less than £5 million will be exempt until 2000, the threshold will then be lowered to a turnover of £1 million. In today's market, that is not such a sum, and it could be achieved by a fairly small business. Some concern has been expressed by small retailing groups that burdens will bear disproportionately on small retailers.
The British Retail Consortium has been undertaking some research to try to correlate the financial turnover in different kinds of retailing businesses with the amount of packaging handled by such sectors. Not much research at present helps small retailers in that respect. If the BRC

655
research indicates that unnecessary burdens will be experienced by small retailing businesses, it will provide the advisory committee with details so that the committee can consider the appropriateness of changing the threshold.
Although I am reassured in part by the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister about the continuing review, I hope very much that he will emphatically reassure small retailing businesses that the threshold particularly will be one of the factors that are taken into account by the Advisory Committee on Packaging during the two-year period when it considers the burdens that will be placed on the smaller sections of the retailing business.
5.29 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The regulations aim to achieve the dual objective of a continuing improvement in our recycling capacity without harming our competitiveness. That can be achieved, but in seeking a balance between regulation and a free market we are bound to have problems.
At some stage, the Government should say, "This is the objective, and we have to achieve it." I believe that much of the delay has been caused by the difficulty of getting full agreement, given that everyone in the sector is competing for an advantage in the market. I am not criticising any of the players for the delays and the difficulties. I would rather that regulations were laid today than we had no regulations at all. I back my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on that point.
We must ensure that the regulations remain on course. When I mentioned the Environment Agency in my intervention, it was not a disparagement or a criticism. We must ensure that the agency is fully equipped and resourced to carry out its policing and auditing role. Many of us who are interested in this area, and many in the private sector who will be affected by the regulations, do not want to criticise the Environment Agency, but we want to know whether it has the necessary resources.
There is a parallel with the Environment Trust, which was established by the same Secretary of State for the Environment. The problem was whether, with only a chairman and a part-time secretary, it could deliver a system that worked. The evidence up to now is that they are having great difficulties making the system work. I put that in the Minister's mind, although by the time anything happens, the changes will be made by a Minister with a different political complexion.
It is important for industry to know that we are on track to achieve the two objectives: good recycling and meeting targets. Unless we are geared up, I suspect that we shall not meet the targets for the end of the century. We should develop expertise in this country, which we could sell to the rest of the world. There is a great market in waste management. It requires an understanding of the pressures and the best ways of using the different technologies—not just recycling—to tackle the problems of waste management in a sophisticated urban economy. That is a great challenge and we could have a competitive advantage over other European countries. We must seize that advantage and find the right balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West has never been a great admirer of the German system, but he believes in a good regulatory regime. All of us who know
656
anything about this business know that the right balance is to have a good regulatory regime and to listen to the private sector, which ultimately has to make a profit.
5.33 pm
Ms Joan Ruddock: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Whips who assist us had calculated that I would be speaking slightly later. I apologise for the delay. [Interruption.] I did not hear the Minister, who made a remark from a sedentary position. I congratulate my hon. Friends on their important contributions to the debate, which were based on knowledge of the subject and were supportive of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
The draft regulations in the European directive have satisfied no one. There has been enormous delay in bringing them to the House. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, the regulations contain nothing that we can wholly praise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, we are left with a dog's breakfast which we have had to acknowledge is better than no breakfast at all.
The Minister made much of the consultation that the Government have had with industry. My hon. Friend rightly criticised that consultation as being incomplete and imperfect. It excluded the other obvious players in the field: the whole of the waste management industry, local government and the voluntary sector. It is not reasonable to consult and pursue ideas about regulations on packaging without involving those important key players.
Under these arrangements, the retailer may displace existing local authority schemes and efforts. The provisions will not lead to a new recycling tonnage, and could affect the economies of scale that local authorities are able to make. That is enormously important: Labour local authorities have been at the forefront of recycling, albeit at the low levels that we have achieved in Britain.
The Minister said that it was important to use market mechanisms, and that only the markets could deliver. The arrangements in the directive are unlikely to lead to the creation of those markets. The producer responsibility mechanism is almost wholly geared to generating or rearranging the supply side of recycling. A number of Conservative Members represent the paper and board industry. They will know that the newsprint recycling industry is already suffering from a glut. What is needed is not just a rearrangement of the supply side, but the setting of post-consumer recycled content quotas which would ensure effective markets. Nothing that the Minister has said leads us to believe that that will happen.
Throughout the regulations, there is little interest in creating markets for recycled goods. More significantly, there is a lack of any mechanism for waste reduction. The Minister said that the Government's intention—I hope that I quote him accurately—is to minimise the amount of packaging produced and to encourage as much re-use as possible. Neither I nor any of the expert commentators whom I have consulted have been able to find where in the regulations those mechanisms are established. Indeed, the regulations are likely to legitimise the status quo by encouraging increases in waste overall, even though the percentage recycling target may be achieved.
I want to comment on European comparisons. Much has been made of the system in Germany, which has been vilified. We all acknowledge the difficulties and the lack

657
of appropriate markets created in advance of the arrangements. Virtually every other European nation is ahead of the United Kingdom in the packaging sector. In every type of packaging material, the leaders usually recycle at least twice the amount recycled in Britain, so there is no room for complacency in regard to packaging regulations.
In view of the short time at our disposal, I shall not repeat the points made by my hon. Friends. A little humility from Ministers would not go amiss, given the massive delays in the United Kingdom's compliance with the European directive. No one is satisfied, either in the House or outside. We shall not oppose the regulations as we know that in government we shall be able to revise them in the interests of business and the community at large.
5.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): With the exception of the contribution from the Opposition Front Bench, the debate has produced what I regard as a wide measure of agreement and a warm welcome for the scheme. It involves the important principles of producer responsibility, shared responsibility throughout industry and dialogue between Government and industry, which we have been keen to see throughout the whole process. That has resulted in what we consider to be a low-cost, efficient approach to waste recovery which combines a light regulatory touch with deterrence to those who seek a free ride.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State was right to say at the outset that these are pioneering regulations. We shall need to listen to the concerns that are expressed to us as the regulations unfold, and it was for that purpose that we established the Advisory Committee on Packaging under Sir Peter Parker. I am sure that the committee will want to take on board many of the views expressed today by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), who drew attention to the great success of the paper industry in recent times, made some important points. I believe that he was particularly enlightened in stressing the great advantage of the scheme: the fact that it was developed through co-operation between Government and industry. That is a fundamental point. As for the points of detail on which my hon. Friend sought reassurance, I believe that I can give him that reassurance. As I have said, we shall keep the process under review and we shall require information before the regulations are implemented. This year will be devoted to the gathering of information and registration and the regulations will come into force in 1998–99.
My hon. Friend also mentioned larger retailers. My hon. Friend the Minister of State said a little about that in his opening speech. I emphasise again that we expect
658
large retailers to be part of the collective schemes and to play their part in them. We think it unlikely that large retailers will be able to come anywhere near fulfilling the whole of their obligation—which, as has been said, amounts to 47 per cent.—through the waste collected at their back door; we believe that they will therefore find it necessary to join a collective scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham raised the question of material cross-subsidy. One of the criteria against which applications for schemes will be considered for registration by the Environment Agency is the minimisation of the potential for such cross-subsidy. That will be an important consideration during the competitive scrutiny of prospective compliance schemes. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend further by revealing to him the attitude of Sir Peter Parker, who has said in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he considers it
"important to ensure that all sectors play an equitable part in relation to the domestic waste stream".
I am sure that Sir Peter will approach his chairmanship of the advisory committee very much in that spirit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham was concerned about small businesses, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner). They will know of the thresholds applying to small businesses. There is a turnover threshold of £5 million, rising to a £1 million threshold by the year 2000. We shall be keen to listen to the voice of small business, as I am sure the advisory committee will be as well.
In a balanced and authoritative speech, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) also rightly emphasised the need for co-operation and the need for all four principal parties in the waste chain to be involved. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) made what I interpreted to be a not entirely unwelcoming speech. Given that background, it is a shame that Opposition Front Benchers had to resort to nit picking. They expressed their confidence in the outcome of the election, which is something of a ritual for Opposition parties. I believe that the result will be the same as it has been on so many occasions in the past, but I must tell the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that I also believe that if his dreams were to come true and his party were to form a Government, the hiving-off process that he envisages would be overtaken by another process of hiving off which might affect the hon. Gentleman himself. Certainly, we do not regard it as hiving off—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14B(1).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Elections (Candidates' Expenses)
5.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I beg to move,
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 11 th February, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion.
That the draft Local Elections (Variations of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.
Mr. Sackville: On occasion, the Government propose to the House that we upgrade the limits for money that can be spent by candidates at local and parliamentary elections. That has normally happened every two years, but, partly as a result of the very low inflation that the Government have achieved, it has happened after three years on this occasion. The limits will be increased by 6.95 per cent.
I have racked my brains as to what else can be said on the subject, but I have failed to find anything, so I shall limit myself to commending the orders to the House.
5.45 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: I am not sure whether the Minister was complaining that he could not rack any more, or whether he had done too much racking and could not find anything; but the House will have heard what he said.
It does not surprise me that the Government wish to nod the order through promptly. I do not intend to speak for long, but it must be said that the public expect some transparency in the way in which we deal with election funding. The order is important, because it regulates the amount of funding that any candidate who contests the next general election, or elections in Northern Ireland, can spend. It is important for that to be dealt with on the Floor of the House, where a little more attention is paid to the matter than might be the case in Committee—although not much more, I suspect, looking around the Chamber.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Minister could find very little to say, because he could not or would not address the fact that room for manoeuvre is very restricted. If we were able, as we are not, to talk about the £40 million war chest that the Tories have obtained from devious sources, and are going to use—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right: he is totally out of order.
Mr. Henderson: I am rather glad that I took that intervention, and learned the mood of the House. I might otherwise have been tempted to move a little further than the precise terms of the order.
The Opposition support the order. We recognise the need to uprate the amount of money that candidates can spend in line with inflation. Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy
660
Speaker, I beg your indulgence so that I may comment on some of the inadequacies of the order. It deals only with expenditure at local level in electioneering.
Nowadays—in contrast to the days, 50 years ago or more, when Parliament first drew up orders such as this—the expenditure incurred by a local candidate pales into insignificance compared with the amount incurred by parties nationally in a general election campaign. It seems to me a little crazy that we can examine only the expenditure that a candidate can incur at a local level, and cannot consider how much is incurred by his political party at national level.
Hon. Members will make their own judgment on how any political party can best get its general election message over. Some may believe that it is still more effective to tramp around the streets, knock on doors or charm the locals in a club, but others—I include myself in this category—think otherwise. We recognise the importance of those factors, but by-elections are different, in that only a small margin of votes may be at stake, with a large effort concentrated on them. In a general election, that kind of campaigning, which is relatively cheap, is not so effective, and does not influence public opinion in the same way as the bashing of political parties on billboards, direct mailing—which is very expensive—or saturation propaganda in newspaper advertisements.
If we believe that that second group of factors has become more and more important in persuading people in our political system, it strikes me as logical that regulations governing the amount that any political party can spend in an election should also focus on the ability of parties to raise funds for campaigning purposes.
I am told by Library staff that a candidate can spend an average of £8,000. There were 651 candidates at the last general election, which means that the total was £65.2 million. That pales into insignificance compared with the war chest of £40 million which this morning's newspapers tell us the Conservative party will have at its disposal in the election. The House needs to conduct a review of the way that political parties and elections are funded. It is not enough to regulate what is happening locally, although that is important. It is crucial to look beyond that, at how public opinion is influenced and how political parties raise funds to influence public opinion.
The British people would not want rich people similar to Ross Perot in America, Berlusconi in Italy—[Interruption.]—or Sir James Goldsmith, as the Government Whip mutters—because it is not right that those who are phenomenally rich should be able to build up a political party and move into the political spectrum with virtually no support among the people. The vast majority of people will not agree with that, and that is why they will fully support a review of the regulations.
It is not possible at this time, eight weeks before a general election, to undertake a major review of the matter, but the next Parliament should look not only at how political parties are regulated and how much expenditure they can incur locally, but at national provisions as well. That is the way to ensure long-term democracy, and the British people will expect serious politicians to support it.
Like the Minister, I have trawled my brains on the order. I support it, because the change is necessary. However, it is also necessary for the House to signal a long-term review of the funding of political parties and

661
election campaigns, to make sure that the public and democracy are protected and that the rich cannot just move in and buy political power.
5.52 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The order is nonsense. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said. Everybody understands that election thresholds should be valorised each year. The last variation order was presented on 13 March 1994, and this one simply catches up with the increase in the retail prices index over that time. If everybody accepts that inflation should be reflected in the base limit for expenses for candidates, why not recognise that in the RPI and amend the 1983 legislation so that, as a new electoral register is produced each February, the RPI will automatically calculate a new threshold limit for expenses?
It is a complete waste of parliamentary time for a poor Minister to have to sit in a darkened room and rack his brains, although goodness knows what that must look like. Even the official Opposition spokesmen have trouble trying to find something to say. I say "snap" to that. Why do we do it? Why not have annual RPI uprating for the new register each February? That would spare us the agonies to which Ministers and Opposition spokesmen are subjected.
5.53 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I was tempted to oppose the order after studying it in detail. We are debating an important subject. What could be more important to democrats than the representation of the people? One of the finest aspects of our electoral system is the tight control of expenditure by candidates. Members of other legislatures, such as that in the United States, look with a mixture of astonishment and admiration at our system, and at the tight control of how much each candidate can spend in an election.
You are a well-travelled Member, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you will know that, under the United States' system, there is no limit on what a candidate can spend. One of the great dangers of the US system and those of many other countries is that a very wealthy person can almost purchase votes because of the intensity of his campaign. That is especially the case if the ability to spend is linked to the ability to buy television and radio time. Hon. Members can count their blessings not only that is there a strict limit on individual expenditure but that, nationally, there is a strict attitude to political broadcasts on radio and television. Long may that continue and prosper.
The one issue in the order that impinges directly on representation of the people is that each candidate is restricted to expenditure of £8,000. But a party with enough money to take all the billboards in my constituency and all the advertising space in my local paper makes nonsense of that by undermining the legislation. By taking space on billboards alone, that party can double the allowable expenditure for each candidate. That faces me, and I have perhaps one of the best, well-oiled electoral machines in the country. Huddersfield Labour party has no equal in the land for membership and commitment, and it uses every modern technique to maintain Labour's majority. I have no concerns on that score.
662
My constituency is surrounded by marginal seats, but the Conservative party will spend so much in my constituency, to which many people come from outlying constituencies for shopping and entertainment, that it will dwarf my £8,000. In the election campaign, possibly £50,000 will be spent on poster sites alone and another £100,000 will be spent on advertising. Given that reality, the order is nonsense.
In a full debate on the nature of our democracy and on the impact of the representation of the people legislation, we would examine in detail not only the principles but the fact that the system is unfair to parties with fewer resources than others. That comes down to the grass-roots issue of one candidate having an unequal chance against other candidates. I fear that that will go on, because we have allowed a great difference.
When I entered politics, I stood for my first seat, in 1974, in Taunton. At that time, not only was expenditure much lower, but the propensity for big poster campaigns and national advertising, even by the Conservative party, was far less pronounced. Now I read of £40 million, and of more money flooding in from China and the far east and from all kinds of dubious sources to the Conservative coffers, and I fear that that will lead to the undermining of our electoral system.
I am not surprised that, before this important debate, the Minister sat in a dark room scratching his head and thinking of something to say. He does not care about our parliamentary democracy, but the Opposition do.
5.59 pm
Mr. Jim Dowd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak somewhat earlier than I had expected, after the Minister's sparkling introduction.
The orders are the result of the periodic review of election expenses and, as has been stated, could hardly be more straightforward, particularly the Northern Ireland one. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) pointed out, they are the product of an almost automatic process, and are before us this evening to ensure that they have effect in time for the electoral festivities, which are but a few weeks away.
The Northern Ireland order merely repeats exactly the provision for the rest of the United Kingdom according to the different procedure. I did have a couple of questions, assuming that a Minister with responsibility for Northern Ireland might be here. Although one is not, I shall read them anyway, and perhaps the Minister could arrange for the responses to be sent on.
Mr. Sackville indicated assent.
Mr. Dowd: I see the Minister nodding. I am grateful for that.
The questions relate to giving some indication of when and how the other remaining regulations relevant to elections in Northern Ireland—the Representation of the People Act (Amendment) Regulations and the Northern Ireland Local Elections (Amendment) Regulations—will be processed. If I could have that information, I should be grateful.0
Despite the slight lapse into hyperbole by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I am sure that the Huddersfield Labour party is an

663
excellent fighting machine. It is certainly a consistently successful one, as his presence here this evening and over many years representing Huddersfield testifies, but he strikes at some pertinent points. The limitations for expenses are a fiction, because they control nothing but individual candidate expenses.
To some degree, the whole legislative framework under which we operate our elections, both parliamentary and local, fails to recognise anything other than candidates. It fails to recognise the existence even of political parties and the machinery they have, whether they are genuine political parties or the inventions of rich individuals.
Although the order calculates in considerable detail the theoretical maxima allowed to be spent by individual candidates at the general election, the whole world knows that they give little indication of the amounts that will actually be spent, particularly during a general election. Taking the 362 county constituencies and the 297 borough constituencies in the UK at the time of the next election, and an average electorate of about 67,000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, that would imply maximum expenditure of £5.5 million in total, if a party were to contest every seat in the UK, and I do not think that that is entirely probable.
However, it is authoritatively reported that Sir James Goldsmith, the well-known grocer who has been mentioned, plans to spend some £20 million on his Europhobic adventure at the general election. In addition, today we have read reports, again alluded to already—I will not elaborate on them, lest I incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of £40 million from a variety of highly dubious sources being deployed by the Conservative party in a frenzied last-ditch effort to buy an election that it richly deserves to lose.
Only one small part of that money will appear on official returns to returning officers—although it is a failed effort, anyway—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has already stated, the whole issue of party funding is a source of continuing scandal and shame to the Tory party. Our action to date in refusing donations from overseas nationals and in
664
revealing the source of all donations of more than £5,000, together with our commitment to review the regulations governing the funding of political parties, stands in marked contrast to the Tory party's disreputable conduct in this matter, where we have also witnessed the questionable use of official overseas visits, paid for by taxpayers, to raise money for the Conservative party.
Mr. Sheerman: Did my hon. Friend read the reports in the McAlpine memoirs this morning that the Prime Minister himself played an active role in that fund-raising activity?
Mr. Dowd: I did indeed, as did many other people. The revelations by the former treasurer of the Conservative party—this is not just some minion at central office, but the person who was responsible for spearheading the fund-raising campaign—add to the shame and scandal that attach to the Conservative party. It is grossly out of touch with public sentiment. The public want more openness, transparency and honesty in relation to the funding of political parties and where those funds come from.
We cannot oppose the orders. They are self-evidently sensible. As I have said, I have great sympathy with the point of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about whether this is the best use of parliamentary time, given that all we are doing is taking the last orders and multiplying the figures by the retail prices index. The House can be confident that, if the British people give us the opportunity in a few weeks' time to form the Government, the Labour party will take the whole question of party political funding far more seriously than the Government ever have.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Local Elections (Variations of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Directors' Emoluments
6.5 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,
That the draft Company Accounts (Disclosure of Directors' Emoluments) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.
The Companies Act 1985 requires all companies registered in Great Britain to provide information on directors' remuneration in the notes to their annual accounts. The information that companies are required to provide is set out in schedule 6 to the Act. The purpose of the disclosure is to permit shareholders and other users of the accounts to satisfy themselves that the directors, in setting their remuneration, are acting reasonably.
The Government believe that a statutory disclosure requirement continues to be necessary for all companies to safeguard the interests of shareholders. The purpose of the regulations is to bring the schedule 6 requirements into line with best practice in this sector, as set out in the recommendations of the study group on directors' remuneration chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury.
Hon. Members will recall that the Greenbury study group was asked to make recommendations on the determination and disclosure of directors' remuneration and to prepare a code of practice for use by the United Kingdom's larger listed companies. When the report was published in July 1995, it was welcomed by the Government as a very helpful contribution towards improving the accountability of directors to their shareholders. We particularly welcomed the report's emphasis on aligning the interests of directors and shareholders by linking pay to performance.
The Greenbury report focused on listed companies and its main recommendations were aimed at listed companies, investor institutions and the London stock exchange. Its key recommendation on disclosure of directors' remuneration was that a report should be sent to shareholders each year explaining the company's approach to executive remuneration and providing full disclosure of all elements in the remuneration of individual directors. The London stock exchange incorporated that recommendation into its listing rules in December 1995.
The Greenbury report also made two specific recommendations to the Government on disclosure of directors' remuneration: that the Government should remove from companies that make full disclosure of their directors' remuneration the obligation to show it in £5,000 bands and that the Government should review the present requirements for disclosure of information on directors' pensions. The regulations implement both recommendations. They also meet the commitment given to the House by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the provisions in the Companies Act relating to disclosure of directors' remuneration would be amended so that they were consistent with the listing rules.
The regulations lay down a basic disclosure rule, which is set at a level appropriate for unlisted companies, leaving it to the listing rules to require more detailed disclosures by listed companies. For example, the regulations require disclosure of aggregate emoluments and those of the highest-paid director, whereas the listing rules require disclosure of the remuneration of each director.
666
The Government accept that it would not be appropriate for unlisted companies, whose shares are not publicly traded, to be subject to the very detailed disclosure recommended for listed companies by the Greenbury report. This applies particularly to very small companies, where frequently all the shareholders are also directors of the company; indeed, the regulations propose a specific exemption from many of the disclosure requirements for such companies.
I deal now with the details of the new disclosure requirements in the regulations. The first substantive regulation covers the aggregate emoluments of directors. The new provisions retain the present requirement on all companies to show the aggregate amount of directors' remuneration, but they follow the Greenbury recommendations by requiring companies to provide information on each element of directors' remuneration.
Companies are therefore required to disclose figures on basic pay, annual bonuses, share options, long-term incentive schemes and company contributions to money purchase pension schemes. This will provide more useful information to readers of company accounts by allowing them to see how companies structure their directors' remuneration packages, but should not mean extra work for companies since the individual figures are needed to compile the overall total.
The second substantive regulation relates to the disclosure of the emoluments of the highest-paid director. The regulations raise the aggregate emoluments threshold for disclosure from £60,000 to £200,000. The threshold of £200,000 relates not to the pay of the highest-paid director but to the pay of the board as a whole. Nevertheless, such an increase will be welcome to many private businesses whose directors do not earn huge amounts, while continuing to catch the very highly paid.
Companies in which aggregate emoluments total £200,000 or more will be required to provide a breakdown of the highest-paid director's remuneration. We have, however, dropped the requirement to show the emoluments of the chairman when he is not the highest-paid director and the requirement to show the number of directors within each pay band of £5,000 since we do not believe that these disclosures provide users of the accounts with important information.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Why has the Minister reached that conclusion? It is extremely important that shareholders in larger companies and the wider public are fully informed about the entire structure of directors' remuneration. The Minister's proposal means that only in the case of the highest-paid director, where the aggregate emoluments exceed £200,000, will there be an individual disclosure. That individual disclosure could be vital in the case of company chairmen and, indeed, all company directors. That surely is the purpose of the stock exchange's insistence on such disclosures.
Mr. Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the stock exchange asked for far more in relation to listed companies. Under the regulations, we try to achieve a disclosure requirement that is manageable for all corporations. The Companies Act and schedule 6 apply to all companies, and we want the general requirement to be appropriate to a small company and the stock exchange listing rules to be appropriate for listed companies. That seems to be the proper balance.

667
The general domestic law that we are debating goes further than European law. With regard to listed companies, Greenbury goes further than either and is to be implemented by the stock exchange to the extent that it goes further than the domestic law.
We do not believe that small companies should be put to a great deal of trouble in evaluating, say, a share option scheme where there is no trade in the share, but at least a reader of the accounts will be put on notice. In a case such as that to which the hon. Gentleman referred, if a shareholder reads the accounts and is startled by or dissatisfied with the emoluments of the highest-paid director, it is open to him to attend the annual general meeting and call for the chairman of the remuneration committee—this is also a requirement—to give information about others, too. I am sure that, in a well-ordered company, the chairman of that committee would do just that at the AGM.
Mr. Cousins: I am following the Minister's arguments extremely closely, but how many individual shareholders find their way to companies' AGMs, be those companies large or small? If a significant proportion of individual shareholders—leaving aside the institutional ones—were to find their way to companies' AGMs, those meetings would all have to be held in the Birmingham exhibition centre.
Mr. Taylor: It is not for me to give a general instruction or warning to or in any way coerce shareholders to attend AGMs; many will probably read the annual report and accounts and find that nothing in them motivates them to attend. However, if they are concerned and wish to ask a question, they can do so.
One of the most important improvements made by the regulations will be the disclosure of information on directors' pensions. The current disclosure rules require companies to include contributions paid in respect of directors under any pension scheme in their disclosure of directors' emoluments. Disclosing company contributions to money purchase schemes gives an accurate picture of the value to the director and the cost to the company of the benefits accrued. We have therefore retained the use of this figure in the regulations although, in line with our general policy that companies should disclose each element of directors' remuneration, we have required companies to disclose such contributions separately.
We do not believe, however, that the present disclosures are always meaningful in the case of defined benefit schemes—pension schemes—where the level of company contributions may be misleading if, for example, a contributions holiday is in force or the director has received a big pay rise and is close to retirement.
The regulations therefore simply require companies to disclose the number of directors who are accruing benefits under defined benefit schemes as a marker to users of the accounts. Companies where aggregate emoluments for the board total £200,000 or more are additionally required to disclose the accrued pension benefits of the highest-paid director.
The regulations underpin the listing rules on listed companies by setting out a basic rule that uses compatible definitions. With minor exceptions, listed companies will have to make only a single set of disclosures to comply with the Companies Act and the current stock exchange listing rules. The pension disclosure rules are a case in point.
668
The regulations and the listing rules will adopt a common policy in their treatment of the two types of pension scheme and will use compatible definitions. The listing rules will, however, build on the regulations by requiring listed companies to provide, in respect of defined benefit schemes, the amount of the increase over the financial year in each director's accrued benefit and either the transfer value of that increase or sufficient information to enable a reasonable assessment of the transfer value to be made. We believe that this is important information in respect of listed companies, but that it would not be appropriate in the case of unlisted companies. The shares of such companies are not widely held by the general public and it would be unreasonable to require them to employ an actuary to value pension entitlements for the purpose of the annual accounts.
The draft regulations follow the current statutory rules in requiring very small companies to provide information only to shareholders and not also to Companies House. In the case of the disclosure of directors' aggregate emoluments, small companies will be permitted to provide a single figure covering all types of remuneration, and will not be required to provide a breakdown by type of remuneration. Small companies do not have to provide information relating to the emoluments of the highest-paid director.
The regulations meet the Government's commitment to make the statutory disclosure rules on directors' remuneration consistent with the Greenbury recommendations. In doing so, they will provide more useful information to shareholders than is currently required without increasing the disclosure burden on companies. They deserve the support of the whole House.
6.19 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am sure that the regulations will receive the support of the whole House, and that the serried ranks around us will, if need be, pour into the Division Lobby to support the Minister. I congratulate him on having mastered a complex measure, on giving the House the benefit of his knowledge and on the concise way in which he put his views to the House.
The Minister touched only briefly on the Greenbury report. The regulations are an attempt to remove the so-called overlaps between the Companies Act 1985 and the stock exchange's requirements, caused by its adoption of the Greenbury recommendations. However, according to a press release from the office of the President of the Board of Trade, dated 30 April 1996, the statutory instrument is designed to amend the Companies Act 1985 disclosure rules on directors' pay and pensions. Therefore, it does not simply remove so-called overlaps, but brings the requirements into line with the stock exchange listing rules—in other words, the requirements will be given full statutory backing, rather than the present self-regulatory backing of the stock exchange. The Government may talk of "overlap" or "underpin", but in reality they are putting on the statute book appropriate regulation dealing with directors' pay, pensions, share options and incentive schemes in line with the policies of the new Labour party.
The regulations apply to all companies, including listed companies, but the application of the rules will vary depending on whether the companies are listed, unlisted or small companies. In our view, however, the regulations

669
are needlessly complex as they seek to separate out self-regulation through the stock exchange listing requirements and statutory regulation through the Companies Act. The Government have come up with an instrument which, first, seeks to maintain self-regulation and secondly, introduces statutory regulation. That is what comes of not having a clear mind.
Easing administrative burdens, raising disclosure thresholds, dropping many existing obligations on unlisted companies, cutting the costs of disclosure and striking the right balance are all favoured objectives of the Department of Trade and Industry, but they can lead to complex regulations that obfuscate rather than clarify where the Government wish to go. The danger—the unforeseen consequence—is that it might be more difficult for shareholders to scrutinise what company directors are doing.
One result of the regulations will be to raise the bar for companies listed on exchanges other than the London stock exchange, and we welcome that. They will now have more stringent disclosure requirements, as they are to be put on a par with the requirements of the London stock exchange. Building on the Greenbury recommendations, the aggregate gains of directors of publicly listed companies, from share option schemes and long-term incentive plans, will have to be disclosed. Those for the highest-paid director will be disclosed separately.
The stock exchange listing rules require that the gains of each director under any share option scheme operated by a listed company be disclosed. However, unlisted companies do not have to disclose gain from share options or the value of any shares that directors have received under long-term incentive plans. That is said to be because of the difficulty in valuing shares of unlisted companies, but as Lord Haskel pronounced in another place, the Government had no difficulty in estimating a value for London Underground, which is not a quoted company. The Government themselves are the biggest customers of the financial consultants who specialise in the work of valuation.
It would not seem to be particularly onerous to lay down a framework for the valuation of shares in unlisted companies. The value of shares in unquoted companies does not elude the Inland Revenue when it comes to calculating their value for the purpose of inheritance tax. I am glad to see the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy in his place. His presence raises a smile among us all on a very dull Monday evening; it is always a pleasure to have him with us. I repeat that the value of shares can be and is calculated by the Inland Revenue for the purpose of inheritance tax. Difficulties there may be, but insuperable they are not. If the Minister wishes to intervene, I shall gladly give way.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): The hon. Gentleman might agree that the calculation of the value of privately owned companies is an art form, rather than a science.
Mr. Bell: I agree, but having been a trustee of an estate, I can say that the Inland Revenue has means of calculating such values, and succeeds in doing so.
670
The unlisted company appears to have a further advantage. The current anonymous banded disclosure obligation is to be replaced by a simpler requirement to show a single figure—the aggregated emoluments paid to directors. At present, the salary of the highest-paid director must also be disclosed if aggregate emoluments exceed £60,000. That threshold will be raised to £100,000. The existing obligation to show the emoluments of the chairman separately if the chairman is not the highest-paid director is to be dropped, as is the requirement to show if any director has waived his emoluments.
Mr. Cousins: My hon. Friend, like me, represents a constituency in the north of England, where we have recently seen two of our major regional utility companies—Northumbrian Water and Northern Electric—taken over by foreign companies, one French and one American. They have now become subsidiaries of companies located outside Britain. Given that it is far from clear whether Northern Electric will continue to be listed, does he agree that the proposed changes in the regulations provide an incentive to de-list, which is wholly unhelpful to people in the north of England, who wish to know some of the proper details about the governance of companies such as Northern Electric? He will be aware that I have no hostility to American companies, which play a great part in our region.
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend, who has major American-owned companies such as Procter and Gamble in his constituency, makes two valid points. The first concerned whether the regulations cover subsidiary companies in this country, and the second was that although the regulations extend the stock exchange listing requirements to other stock exchanges in this country, they do not extend them to exchanges outside this country. The globalisation of our markets is reflected in the stock exchange, in that new exchanges such as Nasdaq are not covered by the rules. The Minister may wish to address the matter of whether the regulations cover subsidiary companies when he replies, or at a later stage.
The paradoxical effect of the changes would be to reduce the available information about directors' remuneration in unlisted companies. The aspects of the regulations that cover unlisted companies are contrary to the rules of transparency and accountability which everyone in the City agrees are elements of good corporate governance.
A propos small and medium-sized enterprises, I note that the regulations provide yet another definition of a small company. A small company may be defined as one that meets two of the following criteria: a turnover of not more than £2.8 million; a balance sheet total of not more than £1.4 million; or not more than 50 employees. We welcome simplification and disclosure exemptions for small companies. Moreover, the Government have not, as before, accidentally bound themselves in more red tape.
The Minister spent a little time talking about pensions, and I shall do the same. The replacement of paragraph 7 of schedule 6 to the 1985 Act is designed to force disclosure of discretionary increases in directors' pensions in excess of what they would have been entitled to, on the basis of their contributions or the fund's performance. He also mentioned Sir Richard Greenbury; we have not spent much time in the debate discussing him or his study group

671
on directors' remuneration, which published its recommendations on 17 July 1995. Sir Richard recommended that listed companies' remuneration committees should report each year to shareholders on behalf of the board, and that pension entitlements earned by each director during the year should be a part of that report.
According to the regulations, directors' pension benefits can be calculated on an accrued benefit basis. They also provide for the disclosure of sufficient information to calculate the capital value of directors' pensions if that information has not already been disclosed. Therefore, for listed companies, the current requirement to show aggregate pension contributions in respect of directors is to be altered. When the pension scheme is a defined contribution one, the company must show the number of directors covered by it, the aggregate contributions in respect of directors and the contribution for the highest-paid director. The Minister called that "underpinning".
The regulations' treatment of aggregation seems to be at odds with the stock exchange's listing rules. Moreover, there seems to be a logical defect at the regulations' heart. It is said to be too costly for companies to provide by name the amount of each element in the remuneration package of each director—although that is required by the stock exchange—and cheaper to aggregate than to provide figures for each director. However, as an aggregate can be arrived at only by adding together component parts—which must therefore be available and to hand—it is, if anything, more expensive to aggregate than to give legal force to the stock exchange requirements.
I have wandered down the byways of technicality, which is inevitable in so complicated an instrument. Moreover, the regulations deal with complex matters that may not be dealt with adequately on the Floor of the House. However, company pension schemes have massive tax advantages and privileges, which mean that the entire community contributes significantly to the private benefits that directors obtain through pension schemes. A significant slice of the £600 billion occupational pension scheme derives from the public purse because of tax exemptions. Therefore, there should be maximum transparency and accountability. Only time will tell—in the on-going debate on corporate governance and director and shareholder responsibility—whether the regulations meet those criteria.
At face value and on first examination, the regulations dealing with pension entitlement do not seem to be adequate. They fail to give full effect to the Greenbury recommendations on disclosure of the value of entitlements, and instead propose a simplistic statement on the amount of pension accrued yearly. There is also a danger that directors will be able to tuck away out of the sight of shareholders and employees—not to mention taxpayers—a huge part of their emoluments. As we shall see, in some cases, emoluments can amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of benefit.
The House is quiet today. In the run-up to a general election, it is good that most hon. Members are already out preparing for the dreaded day. However, Conservative Members who survive the electorate's relentless onslaught at the general election should not be surprised if a new Labour Government build on the regulations' legislative framework, on the basis of our commitments on corporate
672
governance and of any recommendations produced by Sir Ronnie Hampel's review of the Greenbury and Cadbury recommendations.
Sir Ronnie Hampel is chairman of ICI, and he has agreed, on behalf of the Confederation of British Industry, to review the Greenbury and Cadbury recommendations. In the words of his brief, he is
"to ensure that the original purpose is being achieved, proposing amendments to and deletions from the Code as necessary."
The Hampel commission is expected to publish a draft report in July 1997, and a final report at the end of the year. However, for new Labour, the criterion will be enhancement of shareholder value in the framework of the stakeholder economy. The Hampel recommendations will be studied within that framework.
Our proposals are clear from our document "Vision for Growth", which was approved last autumn by party conference.
Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has taken us into some very interesting territory—that new Labour, as he called it, will build on those controls. If indeed the Opposition want to go further—perhaps by implementing salary controls—now would be an absolutely ideal time to say so.
Mr. Bell: If I heard the Minister right, he is on about salary controls. He might explain to the House why there is such a vast difference in pay between directors of privatised utilities and those who work for them. He might also tell us why 160,000 people have lost their jobs in the privatised utilities since privatisation.
Mr. John Marshall: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about pay differentials and implying that some of them are unjust, is he saying that he would legislate on them?
Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into byways that, in the interest of brevity, I had not planned on travelling. Why does not the Minister tell us what he thinks of water company directors and senior managers who, since privatisation, have awarded themselves £24 million in executive share options? Why does he not mention the payments to those on the boards of National Power, PowerGen and National Grid, who, in 1994, were given £5.3 million—more than eight times the £646,000 paid to the board of the Central Electricity Generating Board before privatisation? Those figures must astonish the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).
Mr. Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give a straight yes or no answer on whether he would legislate on those matters? If he would not legislate, why is he so willing to talk about them?
Mr. Bell: Talking about such matters on the Floor of the House is the essence of our parliamentary democracy. The regulations deal with aspects of corporate governance. Those aspects arise from the Greenbury recommendations, which were accepted by the former President of the Board of Trade, the current Deputy Prime Minister, who said that there would be legislation—which we are considering today. We are saying that we shall

673
build on the regulations, based on the Hampel commission's recommendations and on the consultation that we have conducted in the City of London.
Therefore, the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Hendon, South is yes, a future Labour Government will build on the regulations, in the same terms as the regulations—[Interruption.] I can tell him that a Secretary of State in a new Labour Government will exercise the powers
"conferred on him"—
or her—
"by section 257 of the Companies Act 1985(a) and … all other powers enabling him"—
or her—
"in that behalf"
to lay regulations before Parliament. So I not only give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that we shall build on the regulations' provisions on corporate governance, but I have told him the means by which we shall do it.
The clear proposals in our document "Vision for Growth" deal with the role of independent non-executive directors and with shareholder democracy. In response to the hon. Member for Hendon, South, an incoming new Labour Government
"will also give shareholders a greater effective say over remuneration packages granted to executives by giving them a legal right to vote on remuneration packages at the annual general meeting prior to implementation, as well as the right to re-elect the remuneration committee."
The role of institutional shareholders should also be enhanced. Merely encouraging or requiring institutional investors to vote is not by itself enough. The key issue is one of transparency in voting behaviour. That is why new Labour would require institutional shareholders to draw up and publish a clear code of conduct for their voting policy and to make available disclosure of their voting records.
Mr. John M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman go so far as to make voting compulsory?
Mr. Bell: We shall, of course, await the recommendations of the Hampel commission; the Minister may find his answer in those recommendations. We shall consult the commission, but any changes that we feel should be made will be made not by primary legislation but, as I have told the Minister, by delegated legislation.
The Minister touched on the next issue briefly; Baroness Miller of Hendon also touched on it in a debate on Friday in the other place. I refer to the reason why we had Greenbury in the first place, which was the so-called fat cat syndrome. There was anxiety in the public mind about the huge amounts being paid to top directors and top chairmen.
I have a friendly remark for hon. Members who may be absent tonight because they are on the hustings already. I refer briefly to a statement made last week in the Wirral, South by-election. One voter, Mr. Keith Howard of Bebbington, who is a newsagent, said in an interview in the Financial Times that he was disillusioned with the way in which the Tories had allowed fat cat utility bosses to make huge personal fortunes while small business men had to struggle to make a living. He said:
674
"I voted Tory last time, but I am going to teach them a lesson in the by-election."
He added words that may be prophetic. He said:
"You never know, I might teach them a lesson in the General Election too."
The regulations are a very modest measure from a very modest Government. They are not in keeping with the changes in corporate governance, accountability and transparency for which the City of London is looking. To quote a little poem:
"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He all."
On 2 May, this Government will be well and truly ground.
6.42 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: This matter is important and significant. It is disappointing that there should be so few hon. Members here to debate such an important matter. We have created a great mass of individual shareholders. New shareholders have sometimes been created as a result of privatisations; others have come about as a result of changes in the funding of pension schemes or the introduction of personal equity plans.
Investors in such schemes now take their responsibilities extremely seriously. We have the clearest possible sign of a new era of shareholder activism in which shareholders, however small their individual investment, intend to be active on matters that affect the control and governance of the company and on significant issues that affect, for example, environmental matters.
On his deathbed, Goethe uttered the phrase, "More light!" There has always been some confusion about what Goethe meant. Was he referring to something ontic, profound and philosophical, or to something mundane relating to the circumstances in which he found himself on his deathbed? In terms of the regulations, the issue of more light is both philosophical and practical.
I take a great deal of heart and comfort from what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said about the issue. He has given a clear sign that he regards the changes being made tonight as a modest and conditional advance at best, as a retreat in some important ways and as a range of matters that we shall have to revisit when we have the advantage of the Hampel report later this year. I very much welcome and take heart from that.
There have been enormous payment abuses in some of our great companies and institutions. It was as a result of those scandals and the loss of public trust in the governance of those companies that the Greenbury committee met to deal with directors' pay. That move began in the financial markets themselves.
Some of the things that the Minister has said tonight are inexplicable. How can aggregation be simpler than giving individual explanations of directors' and company chairmen's emoluments when, to arrive at an aggregate, one must have available the details of individual pay and benefits? The aggregate is a sum total. How can it be said that it is simpler to provide the aggregate and not the individual amounts, when the aggregate is constructed out of information about the individual amounts?
Mr. John M. Taylor: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the regulations will become part of the general law

675
of England, which means that they will apply to small companies and to large companies. Aggregates are much easier for small companies because the valuation of pensions and share prices in small companies is more difficult than it is in large companies where that information is available. If a company is a listed company, it will have to produce not merely the aggregate but the breakdown. That seems to be quite logical.
Mr. Cousins: My reply to the Minister is extremely simple. He draws a distinction between listed companies and unlisted companies. He seeks to lead the House towards the view that, if a company is not listed, it must be small, insignificant and trivial, and that it must involve a small group of family members or a small network of people, all of whom know each other's business and who are their own audience. That is simply not the case, as the Minister perfectly well knows.
Mr. Taylor: I am not attempting to delude anyone. Company law is quite clear. Within the Companies Act 1985, there is a definition of a small company and a medium company. Anything above that, the hon. Gentleman can choose to call a large company. There is a distinction between listed and unlisted companies. If he is asking me whether there is such a thing as an unlisted large company, I will tell him that there are such companies, but not very many.
Mr. Cousins: Those unlisted large companies include Vauxhall, Ford, Virgin and Eagle Star insurance. They are highly significant companies which have a great part to play in the affairs of our country. There is one significant feature about those unlisted companies. Some of the major ones are subsidiaries of companies that have their main financial and governance base outside this country.
Mr. John Marshall: Eagle Star insurance is a subsidiary of BAT Industries, which is a British-registered company. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vast majority of unregistered companies are very small—normally too small even to consider the alternative investment market?
Mr. Cousins: It is true that a great many unlisted companies are small companies, but I have drawn attention to an extremely important point: some substantial, important and influential companies are not listed. A practice is growing—one of the examples that I have given illustrates it precisely—of buying in shares in order to de-list. For whatever reason—I do not intend to explore the reasons in any individual case tonight—that practice is growing and it avoids the openness and the accountability that comes with meeting the stock exchange rules.
I attempted to raise this point earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, and I now put it directly to the Minister, who I hope will respond to it. We now have many more significant examples in the utilities sector of water and electricity companies being purchased by companies located outside Britain. I do not necessarily object to that; the practice is increasing owing to the competition for share value in the markets—it has a product and a result. The rules should allow disclosure of the emoluments of individual company directors in large companies that have their main governance home outside this country.
676
It is now an almost weekly event for utility companies which were originally based in this country to have their corporate governance directed by companies located outside Britain. There are already some significant examples, including Vauxhall and Ford. The least that we should do is to ensure that companies whose corporate governance is in this country cannot evade disclosure by having their base outside the country and drawing upon the corporate governance practices of different regimes when establishing what they need to disclose. The Minister has said it himself: in some important respects, our practice of corporate governance disclosure is running ahead and setting a standard of practice for the rest of the world. That is not something to be ashamed of and go back on, but something to develop and exploit.
Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Ford and Vauxhall and has said that their UK executives should be subject to more stringent disclosure than their United States executives. He also said that disclosure in the UK is ahead of other countries. Does he seek to encourage motor car companies to locate in Britain by saying that their executives in this country will be subject to more rigid rules than in other countries? Is that designed to encourage overseas companies to come to this country?
Mr. Cousins: The hon. Gentleman's intervention significantly gives the game away. If it is the intention of the Government or any of their supporters to create two entirely different regimes of corporate governance with different standards of disclosure—one for companies based in this country and another for companies based abroad—an enormous perverse incentive has been created for the relocation of central company decision making in other foreign governance regimes. We should be seeking to establish a corporate governance regime that applies to all the major operators in the country and sets standards of practice here for the rest of the world to follow.
I think that I already have the answer to the question that I am putting to the Minister. I think that the Minister is happy for there to be major unlisted companies—located sometimes abroad, sometimes in this country—that will not have to follow the regime of disclosure that the House is discussing tonight.
Mr. Bell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the corporate governance in the US is more transparent than in our country? The other day, Michael Eisner of Disney had to answer to shareholders for his remuneration. Would it not be pleasant to see more of that in our own country?
Mr. Cousins: My hon. Friend is right. If any significant company in this country were exposed to the sort of shareholder activism practised by a major American pension fund such as the California state employees' pension fund, it would be horrified at the degree of accountability that is enforced there—not just through attendance at annual general meetings, but through constant and rigorous scrutiny of activities and developments. In many important ways, the California state pension scheme provides an example to the world of intelligent, well-directed, inspired shareholder activism. In many important ways, the draft regulations do not take us towards that objective, but rein us back. At best, they represent one cheer for shareholder democracy. As my

677
hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough has said, when we have a new Government who understand the way in which the financial and share-owning markets of today work, we shall revisit the issues and shed more light on them.
6.56 pm
Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said that the House was depleted in number tonight because some of his colleagues were already on the hustings. If so, they had better beware the Representation of the People Act 1983, lest they should have started incurring election expenses already—but that was a topic for the previous debate. As always, the hon. Gentleman was a generous debating opponent; it is always a pleasure to debate with him, even though we do not always find large measures of agreement. He was good enough to say that the subject was technical and that it might be necessary to come back to some of the issues later—and I do not mean on the Floor of the House. If any of my colleagues who have followed the debate, from either side of the House, feel that I do not address all the technical issues in my winding-up speech, they should feel free to write to me. I promise to address the points that they raise.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough seemed to have doubts about offering different treatment for listed, unlisted and the smallest companies. It is natural to provide different treatment for those companies because they are different. It is right that a higher level of disclosure should be called for from listed companies than from unlisted companies.
I shall try to deal with the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) as directly as possible. He postulated the theory—in fact, he did not merely postulate it as we know that it already happens—of a utility that is privatised, or floated, and subsequently taken over by an overseas company. In such a case, full information relating to the remuneration, shares and share options of directors of the utility at the time of the takeover bid will be published in accordance with the rules of the takeover panel.
After the takeover, if it happens, the utility is likely to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the overseas parent. It will be subject to the same rules as any other unlisted UK company—it must disclose the emoluments of the directors in aggregate and, if the aggregate figure exceeds £200,000, the emoluments of the highest-paid director. If any directors lose office as a result of the takeover, the accounts must show the aggregate amount of any compensation paid, including the money value of any non-cash benefits.
After the takeover, it is unlikely that the directors of the utility will hold share options in the utility as all the shares are likely to have been acquired by the parent company as part of the takeover process. In other words, the subsidiary would be reduced to having one shareholder. Greenbury is about disclosure of information about directors to shareholders, and the single shareholder will know all about the directors because it will own the subsidiary for which they work—indeed, it will almost certainly set their terms of employment. The remuneration of the directors of the utility following the takeover,
678
including any special features which could conceivably extend to share options in the parent, will be a matter for the parent company as sole shareholder. The directors of the subsidiary will of course no longer have the ability to determine their own remuneration. The parent company will have full access to relevant information, without needing to rely on statutory disclosures.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said that, as a trustee—presumably of an estate or settlement; I know not what and it is not my business—he found that the Inland Revenue had been swift to seek a valuation of unlisted shares in certain circumstances, such as a sale or disposal for capital taxes. In the event of a disposal, a valuation is required; that is almost certainly a proper part of revenue law, but it is quite another matter to require the value of those shares to be calculated every year for accounts purposes. That would be expensive for unlisted companies and we are not in the business of making life more difficult for unlisted companies. The hon. Gentleman might also want to reflect on the fact that changes to company law requiring shareholders to vote or to declare their voting record will require primary legislation.
I am under injunction from the silent ones to move on—I know their authority in this place and there will be no second-guessing from me. In conclusion, I simply want to say that I am no supporter of fat cats; I have no appetite for such matters and the Prime Minister has declared similar sentiments. Whereas we are well up with the European average—in fact, we are roughly typical of the European average—for executive pay, we are well below the levels seen in the United States of America.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough says that he will build on Hampel, but it is we who will be watching the developments on Hampel. As another successful exercise following the comparable successes of Cadbury and Greenbury, we shall be here to deal with them as we are doing tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Company Accounts (Disclosure of Directors' Emoluments) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SOCIAL SECURITY
That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Project Work Pilot Scheme) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Project Work Pilot Scheme) (No. 2) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Contract for Work) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Jobseeker's Allowance and Mariners' Benefits) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

CONTRACTING OUT
That the draft Contracting Out (Functions of the Registrar General in relation to authorising re-registration of births) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION
That the draft British Gas plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.
That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts for Small Hereditaments) Amendment Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.
That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

AGRICULTURE
That the draft Farm Woodland (Amendment) Scheme 1997. which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.
That the draft Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1997, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND
That the draft Education (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.—[Mr. Carrington.]
Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Child Pornography
  7.3 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of the members of the Cambridge Student Methodist Society and the Action for Children Campaign and other citizens of the United Kingdom. They have collected 1,000 signatures, including Mr. Graham St. John-Willey of the Action for Children Campaign, Chris Marsh of Queens' college, Cambridge, and Kim Jensen of Newnham college, Cambridge. The petition states:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Members of Cambridge Student Methodist Society with Action for Children Campaign and other Citizens of the United Kingdom,
  Sheweth
  That we, the undersigned, hereby:

  1. express our deep concern at continuing reports that citizens of developed nations travelling abroad may be encouraging the use of children in prostitution and pornography;

  2. affirm our commitment to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which seeks to protect children from sexual exploitation; and

  3. call upon Her Majesty's Government to seek to play an active role in bringing about concerted international action to tackle this problem and in particular to examine ways of ensuring that individuals involved in such exploitation are brought to justice within the United Kingdom.

  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do introduce legislation to ensure that citizens of the United Kingdom who commit serious sexual offences against children abroad can be prosecuted in this country.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Doorstep Milk Delivery Service
  7.4 pm
  Dr. Gavin Strang: I rise to present a petition in support of the United Kingdom doorstep milk delivery service. The petition states:
  To the House of Commons.
  The Petition of Citizens of the United Kingdom,
  Declares that
  The UK doorstep milk delivery service is part of the fabric of our community. It provides a unique service to consumers, a valuable community contact and employment for many thousands of people; It is important that consumers retain the opportunity to choose to have milk and other foodstuffs delivered to their door by the doorstep delivery service; The milk-round provides an important social service, calling direct to people's doors and providing vital contact for those who have difficulty in leaving their home; It is important that a thriving doorstep delivery service is maintained, for the benefit of the whole community.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take steps to help ensure the continuance of our doorstep delivery service.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Cyprus
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]
  7.6 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: One of the difficulties with arranging Adjournment debates is that, normally, they start at 10 pm or just after and one prepares for the day accordingly. This evening, there is an annual meeting in one of the wards in my association and when I knew that I had been drawn for tonight's Adjournment debate I cheerfully hoped that, without difficulty, I would be standing and addressing the people of the Child's Hill ward at 8 o'clock this evening. However, by Thursday, I had discovered that there was no prospect of my being able to do so. Little did I believe, however, that I would be speaking at six minutes past 7 o'clock.
  This is not the first time that I have taken part in an Adjournment debate on Cyprus. Indeed, the last time my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and I spoke on this subject, the mayor in exile from Famagusta and his deputy were both in the Strangers Gallery and one of our colleagues was not exactly commended by the Chair for pointing out that fact. This evening, we can commend the mayor in exile from Famagusta for his patience and courage in fighting the events since 1974 and for his determination that his people will eventually be rehoused in their own homes.
  I have instituted several Adjournment debates on Cyprus. I feel rather like one of Elizabeth Taylor's former husbands, who said that he knew what to do, but did not know how to make it interesting. I first visited Cyprus in 1977. At that stage, I was struck by the cruelty that had deprived more than 100,000 Cypriots of their own homes. I was struck by the tragedy that had meant that families were prevented from living in the homes that had been in their families for generations. I was appalled by the harsh reality that individuals could see their own homes, be it in Famagusta or Nicosia, but not have the opportunity to live in them. I was also impressed by the resilience of the economy and the speed with which the tourism industry had recovered from the events of 1974.
  I remember three events especially. In 1979, when I was in Cyprus, I was entertained to a mezze in Charlie's bar in Nicosia, and the man who was giving the lunch said that he had been obliged to flee from the Turks in 1974. His whole family had fled, but his father had taken slightly longer than the rest because he wanted to flee with the title deeds to his home. I remember his words: "And a lot of good it did him, because he has died without the opportunity to go home."
  I remember on another occasion standing on the green line in Nicosia and looking over to Turkish-occupied Nicosia. I saw a shop there—a tailor's shop. There was the tailor's dummy, as it had been in 1974. There was cloth in the window—affected a bit by the sun, but there it was, as it had been in 1974, so sudden had been the retreat. People had retreated at the speed of lightning to preserve their lives.
  I shall also remember attending, in 1995, with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox), the annual event outside Famagusta where thousands of citizens of free Famagusta demonstrate
  682
  against the fact that they are unable to live in their homes. As we walked together towards the Austrian colonel, we could see the lights in Famagusta. On the left, the lights were all on; to the right there was complete darkness. That darkness was what had been Varosha, the kernel of the Cypriot tourist industry until 1974, now deserted.
  As that demonstration of thousands of people looked towards Famagusta, some individuals could see lights on in their family homes, which they had left in 1974, and they knew that those lights were not lights that had been left on in 1974, but lights that had been put on that evening in 1995 by a Turkish settler or perhaps by Turkish troops. They knew that many of those homes were occupied by squatters.
  What would your emotions be, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to move towards your constituency in Plymouth tomorrow morning and see lights on in your home and know that it had been occupied by someone and you were not allowed to live there, or even to go into that street? You would be full of distress. So it must be for someone who, for more than 20 years, has known that their home has been occupied by another family but has had no right to go there.
  The world condemns ethnic cleansing—with all its associations with the evil regimes of the 1930s and the early 1940s—wherever it takes place. I remember my father saying, "Apartheid is wrong because we are all God's children." Cypriots are all God's children, and they deserve better of this world.
  There are those in Foreign Offices worldwide who are concerned with realpolitik, and they recognise the impact that the Cyprus problem can have on the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Cyprus has had a long-standing desire to enter a closer relationship with Europe. I remember being told that in 1979. The European Union has a long-standing commitment to start negotiations within six months of the end of the intergovernmental conference, but some are now asking, "With whom should the European Union negotiate?"
  I believe that the European Union can negotiate with only one group—the legitimate Government of Cyprus. Others have said that a divided Cyprus cannot join the European Union—despite the precedent that the European Community was created with a divided Germany. More important, those who argue that a divided Cyprus cannot join the European Union are in effect saying that Turkey has a right of veto over Cyprus's application to join the European Union.
  If we grant to Turkey the right of veto over Cyprus's application to join, we cannot be surprised if there is a tit-for-tat reaction by Greece—would any Greek Government survive if they saw Turkey vetoing Cyprus's application? Turkey is not even a member of the European Union. Would any Greek Government survive if they did not react similarly to the applications by Poland, Hungary and the Czech lands? As one who wishes the European Union to expand to Cyprus and those democracies, I say it is wrong to suggest that anyone should have a right of veto over whether the legitimate Government of Cyprus and the people of Cyprus join the European Union.
  To say that, in the absence of a settlement, there will be no accession of Cyprus to the European Union provides an inducement to those in the north not to settle. There is no evidence that Turkey wants Cyprus to join, and Turkey should not be presented with a lever to prevent Cyprus from joining the European Union.

  683
  There should be no link between a settlement of the Cyprus problem and Cyprus's application to join the European Union. We should recognise the fact that Cyprus qualifies for membership because of its democratic credentials, economic philosophy and financial prudence. Indeed, if Cyprus were in the European Union today, it, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom would be about the only countries to fulfil the Maastricht financial criteria. Perhaps, according to those criteria, Cyprus might almost be regarded as too sound to join the European Union.
  The division of the island since 1974 has been a tragedy, especially for those in the north. The beaches of the north were once the most hospitable in Europe, but they have been deserted by western European tourists since 1974. The hotels of Varosha have been destroyed and, instead of being a haven for tourists, have become a home for stray dogs and rats. The north-south divide has been accentuated in Cyprus; incomes in the north have been depressed, whereas the south has prospered due to the resilience of the economy, the tourism industry and the hard work of everyone who works there.
  In northern Cyprus, the population has been transformed. There are 30,000 troops in northern Cyprus today, and that—as befits me—is a conservative estimate. Other estimates suggest 35,000 or more. We should remember that we have never had more than 15,000 troops in Northern Ireland, facing the might of the IRA. There are twice as many troops in northern Cyprus as we have ever deemed it necessary to station in Northern Ireland. As Keith Kyle has recently pointed out, there were 104,000 Turkish Cypriots in northern Cyprus in 1960. Today, there are 198,215. Bearing in mind the fact that some people have left northern Cyprus, that means that more than half its population consists of settlers from Anatolia, instead of native Greek Cypriots.
  One of the tragedies of the ethnic cleansing of 1974 lies in the fact that a whole generation of Cypriots has been denied the chance to mingle with each other. Rauf Denktash and Glafcos Clerides, the two leaders of their respective communities—the latter, the President of Cyprus who volunteered for the RAF in the second world war—were contemporaries who knew each other as young men. The tragedy today is that young Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots cannot play football together or go to the cinema or even drink coffee together. Instead, they have to come to London if they want to meet one another.
  Another tragedy is the group of enclave people in Northern Cyprus—the small number of Greek Cypriots who said, "This is our home; this is where we were brought up; this is where we want to live." That may be so, but it is also where they have suffered. No one should be pushed around or punished for wanting to stay in the village where his family has lived for generations. I know that the late Lord Finsberg went to see the enclave people on behalf of the Council of Europe and was shocked by the treatment meted out to them.

  The legacy of 1974 has been especially cruel to the relatives of missing persons. I have only once spoken on the same political platform as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but he and I, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and the hon. Members for Knowsley, South and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) all spoke in Trafalgar square at the annual rally against the continuing occupation of Cyprus by Turkish troops. It was very moving to see mothers
  684
  showing pictures of their sons taken in 1974, wives showing pictures of their husbands and children showing pictures of their parents. They still do not know, 23 years on, what has happened to their loved ones. It is surely wrong that these people, many of them in the evening of their lives, should still be in that position.
  There has been much discussion of the Cypriot Government's decision to buy 20 Russian S300 ground-to-air missiles. We must acknowledge that Cyprus is one of the most heavily militarised islands in the world. Why are there 35,000 Turkish troops in the north? Are they there to intimidate the local population? If so, they should not be there. If not, their purpose is purely aggressive.
  Cyprus is only a few minutes' flying time from Turkey. Every country needs to be able to defend itself. We do of course regret the perceived need for the missiles, but we must all defend the right of the Government of Cyprus to self-defence. We can understand why the missiles have been ordered, and we must hope that the attempts to create peace will come to fruition before those missiles are fired.
  Since I last spoke on this subject in the House, there has been a great deal of activity. The Foreign Secretary has been to Cyprus. I am sure that we all welcome the fact of his visit, and the fact that he said that there should be no right of partition or secession under a Cypriot agreement. Sir David Hannay has been busy; Ambassador Muratov of Russia has said that there will be a meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council in mid-March to discuss Cyprus; and Madeleine Albright, the United States Secretary of State, has also made it clear that she wants a settlement to this tragic problem. If the chances of success are related to the amount of diplomatic activity going on, those chances are much better now than they have been for a very long time.
  This has been called the year of Cyprus. There must certainly be hope—23 years is far too long to wait. Many have died without the chance to see their homes again. Many still do not know the fate of their loved ones, and many have been unable to visit family graves for 23 years. Whole generations have grown up as citizens of a divided island. No Cypriot under the age of 30 can remember talking to his Greek or Turkish counterpart. The wait has been too long.
  The people of Cyprus should not despair. Her friends in this House will continue to ensure that the problem receives the oxygen of publicity. Who in 1974 would have forecast that the Berlin wall would be knocked down? Who then would have guessed that Israel and King Hussein would sign a treaty of peace? Who in 1974 would have guessed that Nelson Mandela and the leaders of the National party in South Africa would be part, at least for a short time, of the same Government? It is said that God works in a mysterious way his miracles to perform. May 1997 be the year of miracles; may those miracles begin in Cyprus long before 1 May.
  7.26 pm
  Dr. Ian Twinn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on raising this subject on the Adjournment. We had expected to find ourselves sitting here for half an hour at the end of the day listening to him with the Minister nodding in agreement, so this is a wonderful chance for us to have our say. It was typical of my hon. Friend to rise from his sick bed to set out the hopes and fears of the Cypriot people so clearly.

  685
  A great deal is said about Cyprus's past, about the divisions, the human rights problem, and the security problems for both communities—not to mention the missiles. In the end, however, there is only one objective to consider: the possibility of a just and lasting solution that will allow both communities on the island to live together in peace. The message with which we must concern ourselves is a simple one, but the path to that simple solution is a minefield, as the Labour Front-Bench spokesman recently discovered to his cost recently—when he suggested a rotating presidency, he found other things rotating rather quickly above his head.
  We cannot allow ourselves the colonial luxury of dictating a solution to Cyprus: any solution must come from the hearts and souls of the people of both communities, who all want a solution and a prosperous island in which all can live together peaceably. It is not for us to dictate policy or to argue the details of Cyprus's history. There are two sides to all the arguments over that history since independence, and over Turkey's history.
  In all fairness, both communities have good points to make about why better security arrangements are needed in Cyprus once we have a solution. Both communities have severe worries about what has happened in the past, especially in terms of security. Turkish Cypriots rightly think back to what happened in the early 1960s—for many of them 1963 was a year of horrors. Similarly, the coup, the invasion, the occupation and then the division of Cyprus in 1974 are a cause of nightmares for whole families of Greek Cypriots. There have been serious human rights violations in Cyprus, which need to be dealt with by the international community as well as by both Cypriot communities.
  I have no doubt that the solution to the Cypriot problem is the one to which Mr. Denktash, President Clerides and other Cypriot leaders have agreed—a bi-zonal, bi-communal, federal solution for the whole of Cyprus, with one Government but with administrations that look after the interests of the two communities. It is not for the House of Commons to say what those arrangements should be, but it is for us to take action. That action should be taken in 1997 to bring about those solutions. After all, we are a guarantor power and it will for ever be a blot on our international reputation that we took no action in 1974-we allowed Turkey to respond to the Greek military coup and we all know what followed while Great Britain sat back with its troops on the island—in Britain's as well as Cyprus's interests, and in the interest of British and world peace.
  We have no right to sit back and do nothing now, and I am glad that that view is shared by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), who is taking such an active role in seeking a solution.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, action has already been taken. The Foreign Secretary has visited Cyprus for the first time since independence. He also spoke to the Cypriot community in London this week at a meeting of Conservative Friends for Cyprus, with more than 20 hon. Members and parliamentary candidates throughout the country, demonstrating our interest in ensuring that we get a just and lasting solution.
  686
  This is not a party political issue. The deputy leader of the Labour party addressed a similar meeting in London and we give him due credit for that. To balance our Conservative Friends for Cyprus, the Labour party has the National Committee for Cyprus, run by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). The House has an all-party group of which the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) is an active member, as are the hon. Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). We are an active group and we try to find ways of using the powers and authority of this House to move the argument forward. We do that in conjunction with the Cypriot community, to which we are grateful for keeping us briefed.
  It is interesting to note how the political parties of Cyprus, which are all represented formally in this country with their own branches and organisations, work together across the political divide. We have as much in common with AKEL, the Cypriot communist party, EDEK, the socialist party, the Democratic party of Mr. Kyprianou, and the Democratic Rally party of President Clerides. We work together to ensure that the voice of Cyprus—the voice for justice, human rights and the interests of all Cypriots, whether Greek or Turkish—is heard. We pay great tribute to those in the Cypriot community who have tirelessly sought to attract the attention of hon. Members of this House and of the other place to put that case forward.
  After 23 years, however, Cyprus is still divided. In truth, we have not made much progress. The outlines of a federal solution were agreed between the two communities many years ago but we still face the prospect of a divided island. It is a scar across Europe: a European country with two allies as fellow guarantor powers—Turkey and Greece—who cannot agree with each other, with us or with the people of Cyprus about how to proceed.
  It may seem strange for some hon. Members to hear those such as me extolling the virtues of the European Union to resolve the problem, but I believe that a secure future for Cyprus lies within the European Union. That is one reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and I are keen to support the concept of the European Union. We want a wider European Union encompassing all the people of Europe so that we can live together in peace and help each other with our problems. We have a duty to help Cyprus, and to help it to become part of the European Union.
  My hon. Friend has already outlined our concerns about whether Turkey should be allowed a veto. Of course it should not be allowed a veto on who joins an organisation of which it is not a member. We all know that it would he infinitely preferable, in the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, if we had a united Cyprus by the time Cyprus joins the European Union. It would be in Europe's interests and those of both communities. It would be particularly in the interests of Turkish Cypriots, because the economic and security advantages that could be put in place by that solution would boost their living standards and sense of security.
  Before I sit down, may I make a plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State? While we are proud of what the British Government are doing, and are keen that our voice should be heard in Europe and that our European partners should support our objective for Cyprus, we also realise that this is a world problem, which could ruin

  687
  world peace. Cyprus is part of Europe; it is in the Mediterranean, but it is also close to Africa and the middle east. We do not want security problems in that region. It is in nobody's interest, least of all that of the United States. We understand the close relationship between Turkey and the United States. Over the years, they have worked together for peace in many ways.
  None of those of us who make the case for Cyprus is anti-Turkish. We regard Turkey as a valued ally within NATO. That is the route that we should go down. However, we need to ask our friends in the United States to increase their influence on Turkey, to raise Turkey's place on their agenda from the lower end of their top 10 world problems to the top, so that America tells Turkey that there will be a solution and says that it will put its full weight behind achieving a solution in 1997. That is the sort of action that we expect from the House of Commons and which our friends across the water in the United States also want. I hope that we can all work together so that by the end of 1997 we can feel more confident about peace in the Mediterranean.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in this debate. Having noted it in my diary, I expected merely to come along and support the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), whom I congratulate on securing this debate on the important topic of Cyprus and on his admirable resume of the different aspects of the problem.
  I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Famagusta, which has poignant memories for me. In the past I secured a debate on the subject of Famagusta, which is a tragic waste of what should be the jewel of the Mediterranean. The town could be a test-bed for a solution and for demonstrating that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could learn to live again in harmony. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about the missing people. He will recall that last year I promulgated a private Member's Bill suggesting that a commission of inquiry should be set up to delve into the fate of the missing people. It is heartbreaking to see, at any demonstration of Greek Cypriots that one attends, those aging ladies clutching to their breasts photographs of their loved ones as they were in 1974. In all human decency they should be allowed before they die to know the fate of their loved ones. That is all that they demand.
  I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Hendon, South about the enclaves. I would add that when young Greek Cypriots in the enclaved areas finish primary school, they have to leave the area to pursue secondary and further education and they are not allowed back. That is a violation of human rights and as good an instrument of ethnic cleansing as one will ever get.
  I agree with many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn). We are members of different political parties, but he is right that Cyprus is not a party political issue among us: as he said, we work together across the parties in the House and with all the political parties of Cyprus. We are not conscious of political affiliation when we address the problem.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton also when he says that we should not dictate to the Cypriots how they should come to a solution, but as a guarantor power we have an enormous legal and moral responsibility to do
  688
  all that we can to secure a situation in which the two sides can reach an agreed, just and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem.
  I have been concerned about the torrent of literature that I have received in the mail recently from various organisations identifying with the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot cause, all of which looks back with hatred and anger to the position 30 years ago—a generation even before the invasion of 1974. That distresses me because it helps no one. We should say to all the Cypriots—Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots—that we should look not backward in anger, but forward with hope of a future together in prosperity for all Cypriots.
  There is a danger in the present situation. There were three awful murders on the dividing line in the summer of 1996, when an unarmed Greek Cypriot, Tassos Isaak, crossed the barbed wire, as has been done many times, to demonstrate his demand to return to his rightful homeland and was beaten to death by people wearing Turkish Cypriot uniform. Indeed, I am told that he was beaten so violently about the head with iron bars that his eyes popped out of their sockets. That gruesome murder was recorded on television.
  The next week, in demonstrations following the funeral of that unfortunate young man, a relative of his, Solomos Solomou, climbed a flagpole from which a Turkish flag was flying. Perhaps he should not have been doing that, but it was a peaceful demonstration. Again, recorded on videotape and seen throughout the world, a person in Turkish uniform could be seen taking careful aim and shooting him—not in the knee, elbow or ankle to bring him down from the flagpole which he had climbed only to the height of a few feet, but in the head. As he lay on the ground clutching his head, one could see more shots being fired at his head. Soon afterwards there was a third case of a person being shot, but I will not give the gruesome detail of that.
  I have given those awful details because they illustrate the fact that the present situation is fraught with the danger of even more bloodshed than there was in the 1960s or in 1974.
  The House should never forget the legitimacy of the Turkish invasion of 1974, and the illegitimacy of the Turks' continued stay, occupying northern Cyprus. In 1974 there was an attempted coup d'état against the lawful Government of Cyprus, supported by the Greek military junta. The junta fell as a result of its action in fomenting the coup. The attempted coup lasted several days and, after it failed, the lawful Government were restored.
  Under the treaty of guarantee, the Turkish Government had the right to intervene to restore the status quo, but once the status quo was restored the Turkish army did not have the right to stay. It is well to have it established once again on record in the House that the continued occupation of northern Cyprus by the Turkish army is therefore illegitimate.
  The most important step that could be taken towards a speedy solution of the Cyprus problem is the demilitarisation of the island. One recognises that one could not tell Turkey to take its 35,000 troops away immediately, but a scaling down could begin immediately. President Clerides has made the offer to demilitarise on the southern side of the island, in return for

  689
  demilitarisation in the north, and to support the costs of an international peacekeeping force with no ethnic Greek or Turkish troops on the island.
  Demilitarisation is urgently needed. We have seen the consequence of the S300, to which the hon. Member for Hendon, South referred. While there is an excess of armaments on Cyprus, the potential for armed conflict will continue to exist.
  As the hon. Member for Edmonton implied, when we speak of human rights in Cyprus, we are not talking only about the human rights of Greek Cypriots, although of course they are at stake; we are talking of the human rights of Turkish Cypriots, too, and of Maronites—the human rights of all lawful citizens of the Republic of Cyprus. When we speak of the interests of the Cypriots in the context of entry into the EU, we are not talking of the interests of Greek Cypriots alone. We are speaking even more of the interests of Turkish Cypriots, because their economy has suffered grievously since 1974.
  Finally, I echo the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Edmonton when he referred to the need for peace and stability in the Mediterranean. I remind the House also that although the Cyprus issue is separate, it cannot be disconnected from the issue of relations between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean. There is an extremely volatile situation there between two members of NATO which daily carries the risk of armed conflict, and an escalation of that conflict does not bear thinking about. That situation in the Aegean will never be resolved until the situation in Cyprus is resolved. Like all hon. Members, I hope that, with the renewed interest and activity in Cyprus, the year 1997 will be the year of Cyprus, when we achieve a just and lasting solution that brings prosperity to all in Cyprus.
  7.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for giving us the opportunity to discuss events in Cyprus once again, and I congratulate him on his eloquent contribution this evening. I hope that the people of Child's Hill ward will forgive my hon. Friend's absence: we are grateful to them for allowing him to be here this evening. I understand that he has also lifted up his bed and walked in order to attend, so we are doubly grateful for his presence.
  Many of the subjects mentioned tonight have been covered in previous speeches in the House. I have responded to them, and all my answers given at the Dispatch Box stand. I shall not repeat them tonight. My hon. Friend mentioned the need to make debates and speeches on the same issue exciting. I shall not endeavour to be as exciting as any husband of Elizabeth Taylor—
  Mr. John Marshall: But more successful.
  Mr. Davis: I shall aim at least for greater longevity.
  I shall try to be measured in my response, as I believe that that is the most constructive contribution that I can make to both the debate and the Cyprus question in future.
  We last debated the subject shortly before my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary visited the island in mid-December. During that debate, I said that, if 1996
  690
  could be described as a year of danger, 1997 might be seen as a year of opportunity: time for a serious effort to settle the Cyprus problem. We had some cause for encouragement: both President Clerides and Mr. Denktash told the Foreign Secretary in Cyprus that they, too, viewed 1997 as an important year. Mr. Denktash said publicly that he believed that a settlement could be achieved with give and take on both sides.
  For all that, 1997 has not yet brought much cheer to those who want to see a settlement in Cyprus. The first two months have been difficult. I shall devote most of my remarks this evening to developments during that period, and to the conclusion that I believe that we should draw from them: this is a time neither for bright optimism nor for deep gloom but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) said, for action.
  In the first week of this year, the Government of Cyprus announced their plan to buy a Russian surface-to-air missile system, to which several hon. Members have referred. The quick reaction from the Turkish side was both threatening and bellicose. Neither move has helped to promote a climate congenial to progress on a settlement. Rather than intensifying it, the result has been to divert energy and attention from the serious efforts needed to achieve a settlement. It has no doubt also given great encouragement to those in both communities who want to derail those efforts.
  There has been much talk about the defensive nature of weapons and the right of states to defend themselves. I do not question that right. However, I do seriously question whether this missile purchase was the right decision at this time of some opportunity in Cyprus—especially when the United Nations Security Council has again underlined its concern about the excessive levels of military forces and armaments in Cyprus.
  After that unpromising start to 1997, can things get better? I believe they can, but only with readiness on both sides to stop looking for excuses and start looking for solutions. I do not think that anyone doubts the determination that the United Nations, the United Kingdom, the United States—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton referred—the European Union and others have shown in recent months in a methodical and concerted effort in support of a settlement. They have worked to build a basis of understanding on which the leaders of the two communities can engage. However, it is that engagement that will count in the end: no matter how committed our supporting efforts and encouragement, only the parties themselves can make the decisions that will underpin a comprehensive political settlement.
  For that reason, I hope that, in the crucial months ahead, both leaders will engage seriously and positively with the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative and all those who visit Cyprus to support his mission. I hope that both leaders will focus with determination on how to move quickly to face-to-face negotiations, and beyond that to the goal of a comprehensive agreement.
  What are the prospects of success? I mentioned the visit to Cyprus in December by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. He had detailed talks with both leaders, and set out in his press conference afterwards a list of 10 points that he believed constituted the best basis for making progress. The points draw on

  691
  positions established over many years of efforts to achieve a settlement, and I believe that they reflect a significant degree of common ground in setting out the general shape of an acceptable settlement.
  However, neither side yet has a clear route map of how it will move towards that settlement. The international community—the United Nations, supported by the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union and others—has a crucial role to play in helping to draw that map. However, in the end, it will be up to the Cypriots whether they wish to use it. Should they choose to do so, we are under no illusions: difficult choices and compromises lie ahead for both sides in a number of areas. For example, how will a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation look in practice? How should political equality be expressed in the new constitution? How will the powers of the two zones be defined? What powers should the presidency be given? What arrangements should be made for those who became refugees in 1974? Fundamentally, what security arrangements will there be to underpin a settlement?
  We can put the questions, and we may even suggest some answers, but the Cypriots are the only people who can provide those answers. Security is a case in point. In his 10 points, my right hon. and learned Friend said:
  "the security of each of the two communities and of the settlement as a whole will be achieved by means of international guarantees and by such measures of international collective security as may be agreed by the parties."
  As ever in Cyprus, the statement has been construed in some quarters as calling for the dilution of the 1960 treaty of guarantee; in others, it has been described as unqualified support for it. The statement actually reflects the simple fact that a settlement will need to be based on security arrangements with which both sides can be comfortable. Beyond that, it reflects implicitly that the present situation provides no real, lasting security. At best, it provides a short-term and inadequate comfort blanket, wherein each community's security is obtained at the cost of the insecurity of the other community.
  By way of conclusion, I mention once again the European dimension. I make no apologies for retreading ground that we have covered in previous debates. It is important that the issues are clearly understood. The European Union factor is a comparatively new and positive development. It offers a real opportunity, but how can that opportunity best be taken?
  692
  Few disagree that the best solution is for a political settlement to precede the accession negotiations. In those circumstances, negotiations would be joined by the Government of a bi-zonal, bi-communal, federal Cyprus. The date for negotiations to start has been agreed by the European Union, and that commitment will be honoured. However, we remain convinced that the negotiating process will be much easier and the path to accession much smoother if, by then, a settlement is assured or in sight.
  Again, let me make it absolutely clear—in direct response to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South—that nobody, I repeat nobody, outside the European Union can, whatever the circumstances, veto Cyprus's accession to the Union. It is not impossible for a divided Cyprus to enter the European Union, but no one should assume that negotiations by a divided Cyprus would be simple or straightforward.
  In that context, I want to spend a few minutes on the question that arose at last week's General Affairs Council in Brussels about the participation of the Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus's accession negotiations. We were, of course, disappointed that it proved impossible to reach agreement among all member states on the question, and that, as a result, the structured dialogue meeting with Cyprus that was scheduled for 25 February had to be cancelled. It was a particular pity, because we felt that it was rather straightforward and uncontentious simply to express the hope that a situation would be achieved in which all Cypriots could participate in the negotiation process.
  Clearly, a settlement before the negotiations started would achieve such an aim. It is a separate question—and one that we cannot judge now—what other circumstances might permit Turkish Cypriot participation in the accession negotiations. We wanted the GAC message to encourage the Turkish Cypriot community to see EU accession as an opportunity. What we seek to achieve is what the March 1995 Council envisaged: that accession should benefit all communities in Cyprus, as I have heard reflected in this debate.
  The events of last summer and the developments in the past few weeks reminded us how easily steps backwards can be taken. The arguments for steps forward should be all the more compelling. That is why the Government will persevere and persevere in their efforts in support of a settlement.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eight o ' clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Water Cannon
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times water cannons have been used by police forces in Britain since 1967; for what reasons they were used; on what dates they were used; in what places they were used; and if police forces are currently authorised to use water cannons. [17949]

  Mr. Maclean
  Water cannons have never been used by police forces in England, Wales or Scotland. It is for chief police officers to decide what public order equipment to deploy and how to authorise its deployment.

  Sexual Orientation (Police Database)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances an individual's sexual orientation is recorded on the police national computer. [18222]

  Mr. Maclean
  An individual's sexual orientation should not be recorded on the police national computer.

  Charities (Criminal Records Checks)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) Barnardos and (b) the Scouts Association about the proposed charges for criminal records checks on charities; and if he will make a statement. [17968]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received many representations on this matter from a range of voluntary groups, including Barnardos and the Scouts Association. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House on Second Reading of the Police Bill [Lords] that we shall seek
  "to amend the Bill … to introduce an order making power to enable free checks to be provided for specific groups, such as volunteers, if and when the money became available to cover the costs of doing so."—Official Report,12 February 1997; Vol. 290, column 359.

  Convicted Paedophiles
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to track convicted child sex abusers who, on release from prison on licence, have immediately disappeared; [18355]

  (2) what steps he is taking to track convicted child sex abusers who change their names. [18343]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Sex Offenders Bill places an obligation on those convicted or cautioned for paedophile and other serious sex offences to notify changes of name 464
  and address to the police. Failure to do so, in the circumstances laid down by the Bill, will be a criminal offence.

  The police have devoted substantial efforts to managing the risks posed by paedophiles, in co-operation with other agencies, and have developed strategies to monitor the movements of paedophiles who try to escape from view. If a prisoner released on licence fails to keep contact with his probation officer in accordance with the terms of his licence, he may, depending on the circumstances, be recalled to prison.

  Youth Justice System
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proposals he has to publish a Green Paper on the youth justice system; and if he will make a statement. [13199]

  Mr. Maclean
  [pursuant to his answer, 30 January 1997, columns 313–14]: The Government will be publishing a Green Paper tomorrow, setting out proposals for preventing children offending.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Companies
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which years since 1979 Government assistance was given to capital or revenue expenditure of (i) publicly owned and (ii) private water companies for(a) new reservoirs and (b) prevention of leaks in mains supplies; and in each case what was the nature of the assistance. [17740]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1983–84 the Government made a specific grant, repayable within five years, to Northumbrian Water towards the financing costs of major investment including the Kielder reservoir. No other financial assistance from Government since 1979 has been specifically for the provision of new reservoirs or the prevention of leaks in mains supplies, which have been matters for the former water authorities and the water companies.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what report he has received from the Environment Agency in respect of Nirex's assessment of the likely destruction of geological information from the construction of a rock characterisation facility at Sellafield. [17729]

  Mr. Gummer
  None.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has for public consultation on(a) the groundwater pressure data and (b) Nirex's revised interpretation of the base line hydrogeology before he makes a decision on the proposed rock characterisation facility at Sellafield; [17734]

  (2) what plans he has for consulting interested parties regarding the impact on base line hydrogeology of the proposed rock characterisation facility, at Sellafield. [17735]
  465
  Mr. Gummer
  I am considering the matter.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information Nirex has provided to him in respect of independent peer review of the base line groundwater pressure dataset relating to the proposed rock characterisation facility at Sellafield; [17736]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the relevance of the hydrogeological base line dataset to the safety case of a nuclear repository at Sellafield. [17733]

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 23 January,Official Report,column 678.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee has given to his Department regarding consultation with interested parties over the base line hydrogeological effects of the proposed rock characterisation facility at Sellafield. [17737]

  Mr. Gummer
  None. However, in the response that the committee published in February 1993 to UK Nirex Limited's "Consultative Document on a Rock Characterisation Facility", RWMAC said that it would be important to ensure that the base hydrogeological regime in the region of the potential repository site and the extent of monitoring was agreed by independent peer review or other means with as many interested parties as possible and that a period of 18 months to two years of monitoring prior to the commencement of shaft sinking would be regarded as normal practice.

  In September 1995, the committee published a report, "Review of aspects of the scientific mission and role of the Nirex Rock Characterisation Facility at Sellafield", made in response to requests by UK Nirex Limited and Cumbria county council. In this, the committee said that its recommendations over timing remained, but were now likely to be met
  "in view of the interpolation of the RCF planning inquiry into the overall repository programme."

  The committee said that the proposed peer review should be published prior to the start of RCF shaft excavation.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements were made for peer review by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution of the Nirex proposal to begin construction work at the proposed nuclear waste repository site during the public inquiry into the proposed RCF at Sellafield. [17981]

  Mr. Gummer
  I am not aware of any such proposal.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what cost recovery arrangements have existed between HMIP and Nirex since the public inquiry into the proposed rock characterisation facility at Sellafield. [17980]

  Mr. Gummer
  None. HMIP's previous agreement with UK Nirex Limited ended in September 1994, following notice of termination given by the company. The Environment Agency is currently consulting publicly on the terms of a new agreement that it is minded to enter into with Nirex.

  Caesium-137
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has conducted into the re-suspension of Caesium-137 into the environment via biological pathways following nuclear accidents(a) within and (b) outside the United Kingdom. [18108]

  Mr. Gummer
  A study of re-suspension of radioactive caesium at a number of sites within the United Kingdom and western Europe was undertaken for my Department following the Chernobyl accident. The report of this work, entitled "Environmental Radioactivity from Chernobyl", has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes have been made to his Department's commitments to action in 1997 in respect of biodiversity plans set out in section 6 of "This Common Inheritance" 1997, in his most recent departmental Minis report. [17725]

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department is totally committed to achieving the UK biodiversity plan's actions for 1997 and beyond as set out in section 6 of the commitments table of "This Common Inheritance" 1997. The latest departmental Minis report will fully reflect this commitment.

  Homes (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of(a) council and (b) housing association homes that will be required for the Greater London area in each of the years to 2000. [17982]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are no official projections of council homes or housing association homes required for the Greater London area in future years.

  Social Housing (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of new social homes required in each borough in Lancashire in each of the years to 2000. [18436]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are no official projections of social homes required in each borough in Lancashire for future years.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the name of the national heritage adviser to the Countryside Commission; and what is his professional background. [18010]

  Mr. Clappison
  The National Heritage adviser to the Countryside Commission is Mr. Paul Walshe. His professional background is that of a landscape architect and an architect. He also has a postgraduate degree in environmental conservation.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which consultants were employed by the
  467
  Countryside Commission to advise it on the crossing of the River Avon by the proposed Salisbury bypass; what were the terms of reference given to the consultants; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the consultants' report. [18012]

  Mr. Clappison
  The consultants were Novell Tullett of Bristol, assisted by Christopher Taylor, who is a landscape historian and former head of the archaeological survey for the Royal Commission on historic monuments of England.

  The terms of reference given to the consultants were as follows:
  "The appointed consultants will be required to undertake the following tasks:

  an assessment of the character and importance of the landscape setting of Salisbury Cathedral in the Nadder and Avon Valleys, through which the proposed road runs;

  an assessment of the impact of the proposals on this landscape, in particular in the vicinity of the East Harnham Meadows;

  advise whether or not the measures proposed for landscaping will significantly ameliorate the impact of the proposal on the area and, if not, what, if any, further measures could be adopted."

  The consultants were also asked to advise on the impact of any alternative alignments put forward by the Highways Agency avoiding the East Harnham meadows site of special scientific interest.

  I have made arrangements for a copy of the consultants' report to the commission to be placed in the Library.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid and trade provision. [18277]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Given the success of British companies in winning business with ATP support, the ATP budget in Asia is under severe pressure. This is why companies were advised of a hold on new offers of ATP support in Asia last November.

  I have now finalised the future allocation of aid resources following the Budget. The allocations for ATP in the next two years have been increased by 45 per cent. and 37 per cent. respectively, to £77.7 million in 1997–98 and £70.7 million in 1998–99. The 1999–2000 allocation is £49 million.

  In Asia, these enhanced levels will allow ODA to meet contractual commitments; to support those projects on which offers of assistance have been made; and to proceed, subject to satisfactory appraisal, with identified projects for which appraisals are nearly complete or are close to approval. Further ahead, we shall fulfil our obligations under the concessionary finance arrangements signed with overseas Governments as aid programme resources allow. In practice, with the exception of the small number of projects mentioned above where appraisal is well advanced, no further offers of ATP in Asia are likely to be made for some time. However, ATP
  468
  remains a significant element in the ODA aid effort, and the position will be reviewed again during this year's public expenditure round.

  In Africa where demands are fewer, business can continue as usual within the resources allocated.

  Companies seeking further information on ATP in either Asia or Africa should consult the ODA or Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which five companies were allocated the largest sums from the United Kingdom aid and trade budget between 1978 and 1994; how much cash was allocated during this period; and what percentage of the budget for this period their allocation represented. [18019]

  Dr. Fox
  I refer the hon. member to the reply given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right honourable Friend the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on 15 January 1996,Official Report,column 357.

  Ivory Coast
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of the Ivory Coast regarding measures taken against the Student Federation, Fédération Estudiantine et Scolaire de Côte d' Ivoire. [17849]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The British embassy in Abidjan recently met senior Ivorian Government officials to discuss the legal status of FESCI and the measures taken against that organisation.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had in respect of the human rights situation in the Ivory Coast. [17850]

  Dr. Fox
  My ministerial colleagues and I receive occasional representations from groups concerned with human rights in Cote d'lvoire. The British embassy in Abidjan closely monitors human rights and recently met senior Ivorian Government officials to discuss the issue. Foreign Office officials have also met visiting Ivorian parliamentary opposition leaders.

WALES

  Bron Dyffryn Special School
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much direct funding Bron Dyffryn special school has been in receipt of from Her Majesty's Government during each of the last three years. [18288]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None that I am aware of. Bron Dyffryn is a local education authority maintained special school funded by Denbighshire county council in accordance with the resource allocation formula contained in its local management of schools scheme.
  469

  Targets for the Planning Inspectorate Agency
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what performance targets he has set for the Planning Inspectorate Agency's work in Wales for the financial year 1997–98. [18600]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The key objectives for the agency in 1997–98 continue to be to preserve the impartiality and quality of the inspectorate's work while seeing further to improve its efficiency. I have set the following key targets for the agency's work in Wales:

  Timeliness

  (a) Eighty per cent.of all planning appeals decided by written representations to be determined within 17 weeks;

  (b) Eighty per cent. of all planning appeals decided by hearings to be determined within 22 weeks;

  (c) Eighty per cent. of all planning appeals decided by inquiries to be determined within 30 weeks;

  (d) To provide an inspector for local plan inquiries on request within 26 weeks of the end of the objection period and to deliver 90 per cent. of inspector's reports to local authorities by the dates agreed in service agreements.

  Financial

  (a) Unit costs of planning appeals decided by written representations not to exceed the target to be set for the Inspectorate by the Department of the Environment;

  (b) Recover 90 per cent. of receipts due within eight weeks of the invoice date.

  Efficiency
  Contribute to the generation of an efficiency improvement in the Agency's use of running costs compared with 1996–97, in accordance with the target to be set for the inspectorate by the Department of the Environment.

  Quality
  To satisfy the advisory panel on standards and thus the Secretary of State, annually and following rigorous monitoring, that the quality of the Inspectorate's work is being maintained at a high standard with 99 per cent. of its case work, free from error.

  Welsh Language
  To respond in Welsh to all inquiries, written or oral, received in Welsh within the same time scales as allowed for responding to inquiries generally.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Jobcentres (Jobs Advertised)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the average number of hours per week advertised for jobs in each jobcentre in England in the latest week for which figures are available; [17715]

  (2) what was the average number of jobs advertised in each jobcentre in England in each week from November 1996 to the latest week available; [17724]

  (3) what percentage of jobs advertised in each jobcentre in England were for part-time work; and what percentage of jobs advertised in each job centre in England were for jobs specifying 40 hours or more in the latest week for which figures are available; [17716]

  (4) what percentage of jobs advertised in each jobcentre in England were for permanent employment at the latest date for which figures are available; [17717]
  470
  (5) what was the average pay rate on offer at each jobcentre in England in the latest week for which figures are available; [17722]

  (6) what was the lowest pay rate on offer at each jobcentre in England in the latest week for which figures are available. [17723]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 3 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the details of vacancies held at Employment Service Jobcentres in England. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Employment Service (ES) does not collect figures relating to the average weekly hours of vacancies held at Jobcentres, nor details relating to vacancies specifying forty hours or more per week.
  I have arranged for a copy of a table to be placed in the Library, which shows the number of vacancies remaining unfilled at Jobcentres in England for the months of November 1996, December 1996 and January 1997. Vacancy statistics are collected on a monthly basis, rather than weekly, and published by the Office for National Statistics through the National Online Manpower Information System (NOMIS). A Nomis access point is located within the House of Commons Library.
  A simple split of vacancies between those which are part-time or full-time is held on Nomis, but the latest available figures relate to January 1996. I regret that later figures are not currently available as a result of problems arising from the introduction of new computer systems but I expect that the Office for National Statistics will be able to resume quarterly publication later this year when the problems have been overcome.
  Although the Employment Service does not collect regular figures on wage rates of vacancies held at Jobcentres, some national estimates are available from research. The latest available information relates to 1994 and was in the reply to your previous question which appeared in Official Report Column 907 dated 1 February 1996.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding numbers of students in higher education. [17727]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend regularly receives representations from a range of bodies and institutions on a number of higher education issues, including student numbers. Nearly one in three young people in Britain now enters full-time higher education, compared with one in eight in 1979. Our spending plans assume that this record participation rate will continue. Longer-term plans for student numbers will be decided in the light of recommendations from the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if, in the case of people refused incapacity benefit, her Department takes into account the information contained in the incapacity benefit application form regarding illness and incapacity, when applying the availability for work criteria to a claim for jobseeker's allowance. [17880]
  471
  Mr. Forth
  A decision on incapacity benefit that a person is capable of work also applies to jobseeker's allowance. While a person may be capable of work, we recognise that some people's mental or physical condition may restrict the type of work for which they are available. That is why under JSA a person with a mental or physical condition may restrict their availability for work in any way, provided that those restrictions are reasonable in the light of their condition.

  In determining what is reasonable the Employment Service may, in cases of doubt, require more information about a condition which restricts availability. The IB disallowance notice sets out the level at which a person has been assessed and the functional areas in which limitations were identified; the ES may request this information from the jobseeker and this is normally sufficient. In the few cases where additional information is required an independent adjudication officer may approach the Benefits Agency Medical Service for further information about the condition. ES staff do not, however, have access to IB application forms when assessing a person's availability for work.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if fluctuating disability is taken into account under the jobseeker's allowance scheme when considering a person's availability for work. [17882]

  Mr. Forth
  Under the provisions of the jobseeker's allowance a person with a mental or physical condition may restrict their availability for work in any way, provided that those restrictions are reasonably in the light of their condition. In determining what is reasonable the employment adviser will consider all the relevant aspects of a person's condition, including whether it is a fluctuating disability.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersens, (c) BMI, (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992 and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor and the value of the contract in each case. [17603]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has entered into the following contracts since 1 April 1993.1

  Contractor

  Number of contracts

  Value £

  Function

  Capita

  Three

  47,674

  Management consultancy (management information systems)

  7,109

  Management consultancy (corporate objectives)

  4,567

  Accounting system consultancy

  472

  Contractor

  Number of contracts

  Value £

  Function

  Sema

  Three

  41,259

  System analysis

  6,412

  IT consultancy (network address study)

  11,750

  IT network consultancy (network feasibility study)

  No other contracts have been awarded by any of my departments or agencies to any of the named contractors during that period. This does not include orders placed with the GCat catalogue operated by EDS.

  1 Detailed information prior to 1 April 1993 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Authority Contracts (VAT)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the extent to which public authorities, with special reference to schools and hospitals, have disproportionately favoured non-VAT registered traders when issuing contracts. [18154]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is not available as no assessments have been carried out of the extent to which public authorities contract with VAT registered and non-VAT registered traders.

  The Audit Commission tells me that local education authorities—schools—can recover VAT on their non-business activities under section 33 of the Value Added Taxes Act 1994, so have little incentive to favour non-VAT registered traders.

  For the NHS—hospitals—as for similar bodies such as banks which cannot recover their input VAT, there is an incentive to favour non-VAT registered businesses. The Audit Commission has no knowledge of this happening on a wide scale and the registration limit of £47,000 for VAT means that non-VAT registered traders may be involved only in very small scale contracts.

  Anti-dumping Duties
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount raised from anti-dumping duties imposed by the EU on photocopiers in 1995. [17749]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: Anti-dumping duty on photocopiers amounting to £906,522 was collected by HM Customs and Excise in the UK in 1995. Information on the amount collected across the EU is being collated and will be placed in the Library of the House when available.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many anti-dumping duties have been imposed by the European Union(a) from 1980 to 1985, (b) from 1985 to 1990 and (c) since 1990. [17750]
  473
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: Definitive EU anti-dumping duties were applied to the following number of products in the periods in question:

  1980 to 1984: 40

  1985 to 1985: 49

  1990 to date: 99.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the anti-dumping duties imposed for the periods (i) 1984 to 1990 and (ii) 1990 to 1996 in(a) the European Union, (b) the USA, (c) Australia and (d) Mexico. [17751]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: The table lists the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed in the European Union by year from 1984; 55 such duties were imposed between 1984 and 1989, and 98 between 1990 and 1996. Details of each duty were published in the Official Journal of the European Communities,for which references are given. This is available in the Library of the House. The annex does not list anti-dumping cases which were terminated or for which undertakings were obtained.

  Information on anti-dumping duties imposed by the US is available on the world wide web, reference http://www.ita.doc.gov\import_admin\records. Complete details could be reproduced in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. Information on anti-dumping duties imposed by Australia and Mexico is being collated and will be placed in the Library of the House when available.

  Definitive anti-dumping duties imposed in the European Union 1984 to date

  Product

  Exporting country

  Definition duty imposed (Official journey reference)

  Hardboard

  USSR

  1984(OJ 1984 L170/68)

  Exterior panel doors

  Taiwan

  1984(OJ 1984 LI70/70)

  Ball bearings (miniature)

  Japan, Singapore

  1984(OJ 1984 L193/1)

  Acrylic fibres

  USA

  1984 (OJ 1984 L205/1)

  Sodium carbonate (dense)

  USA

  1984 (OJ 1984 L311/26)

  Concrete reinforcing bars

  Spain

  1984 (OJ 1984 L33/15)

  Pentaerythritol

  Canada

  1985 (OJ 1985 L13/1)

  Paraformaldehyde glass mirrors

  Spain, South Africa

  1985 (OJ 1985 L148/1)

  Electronic typewriters

  Japan

  1985(OJ 1985 L163/1)

  Ball bearings (<30mm)

  Japan

  1985 (OJ 1985 L167/3)

  Hydraulic excavators

  Japan

  1985 (OJ 1985 L176/1)

  Polystyrene sheets

  Spain

  1985 (OJ 1985 L198/1)

  Glycine

  Japan

  1985 (OJ 1985 L218/1)

  Oxalic Acid

  Brazil

  1985 (OJ 1985 L26/6)

  Basic chromium sulphate

  Yugoslavia

  1985 (OJ 1985 L321/81)

  Copper sulphate

  Poland

  1985 (OJ 1985L41/11)

  474

  Definitive anti-dumping duties imposed in the European Union 1984 to date

  Product

  Exporting country

  Definition duty imposed (Official journey reference)

  Copper sulphate

  Yugoslavia

  1986(OJ 1986 L113/4)

  Clogs

  Sweden

  1986(OJ 1986 L32/1)

  Potassium permanganate

  China, Czechoslovakia, USSR

  1986(OJ 1986 L339/32)

  Bicycle chains

  China

  1986 (OJ 1986 L40/25)

  Electronic scales

  Japan

  1986 (OJ 1986 L97/1)

  Copper sulphate

  Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, USSR

  1987(OJ 1987 L124/1)

  Outboard motors

  Japan

  1987(OJ 1987L124/1)

  Vinyl acetate monomer

  USA, Canada

  1987 OJ 1987 L213/32)

  Mechanical wrist watches

  USSR

  1987 (OJ 213/5)

  Vinyl acetate monomer

  Canada

  1987 (OJ 1987 L275/1)

  Urea

  Libya, Saudi Arabia

  1987 (OJ 1987 L317/1)

  Ferro-silicon calcium

  Brazil

  1987 (OJ 1987 L322/1)

  Sheets and plates of iron or steel (hot-rolled 3mm+)

  Yugoslavia, Mexico

  1987 (OJ 1987 L330/42)

  Ball bearings (miniature)

  Japan

  1987(OJ 1987 L336/1)

  Ferro-silicon

  Brazil

  1987 (OJ 1987 L343/1)

  Mercurys

  USSR

  1987 (OJ 1987 L346/27)

  Ball bearing housing

  Japan

  1987 (OJ L35/32

  Plain paper photocopiers

  Japan

  1987 (OJ 1987 L54/12)

  Deep freezers

  USSR

  1987 (OJ 1987 L6/1)

  Standard multi-phase electric motors

  Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, GDR, Hungary, Poland, Romania, USSR, Yugoslavia

  1987 (OJ 1987 L83/1)

  Bicycle chains

  China

  1988(OJ 1988 L115/1)

  Potassium permanganate

  China

  1988(OJ 1988 L138/1)

  Oxalic acid

  South Korea, Taiwan

  1988 (OJ 1988 L184/1)

  Iron or steel coils

  Algeria, Mexico, Yugoslavia

  1988 (OJ 1988 LI88/18)

  Iron or steel sections

  Yugoslavia, Turkey

  1988 (OJ 1988 L313/18)

  Serial-impact dot matrix printers

  Japan

  1988 (OJ 1988 L317/33)

  Polyester yarn

  Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey

  1988(OJ 1988 L347/10)

  Paracetamol

  China

  1988 (OJ 1988 L348/1)

  Synthetic textile fibres of polyester

  Mexico, Romania, Taiwan, Turkey, USA, Yugoslavia

  1988 (OJ 1988 L348/49)

  475

  Definitive anti-dumping duties imposed in the European Union 1984 to date

  Product

  Exporting country

  Definition duty imposed (Official journey reference)

  Sodium carbonate (light)

  Bulgaria, GDR, Poland

  1989 (OJ 1989L131/4)

  Video cassettes and video tape reels

  Hong Kong, South Korea

  1989 (OJ 1989 L174/1)

  Sheets of iron or non-alloy steel (cold-rolled)

  Yugoslavia

  1989(OJ 1989L193/11)

  Copper sulphate

  Bulgaria, USSR

  1989(OJ 1989 L23/1)

  Calcium metal

  China, USSR

  1989(OJ 1989 L271/1)

  Acrylic fibres

  Mexico

  1989(OJ 1989 L301/1)

  Daisy-wheel printers

  Japan

  1989 (OJ 1989 L5/23)

  Urea

  USA, Venezuela

  1989 (OJ 1989 L52/1)

  Video cassette recorders

  South Korea, Japan

  1989 (OJ 1989 L57/55)

  Paint brushes

  China

  1989 (OJ 1989 L79/4)

  Small screen colour televisions

  South Korea, China, Hong Kong

  1990 (OJ 1990 L107/56)

  Compact disc players

  South Korea, Japan

  1990 (OJ 1990 L13/21)

  Glutamic acid and its salts

  Austria, Indonesia, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand

  1990 (OJ 1990 L167/1)

  Ferroboron

  Japan

  1990(OJ 1990 L187/1)

  Silicon metal

  China

  1990(OJ 1990 L198/57)

  Tungsten ore and concentrates

  China

  1990(OJ 1990 L264/1)

  Tungstic oxide and tungstic acid

  China

  1990(OJ 1990 L264/4)

  Tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide

  China

  1990(OJ 1990 L264/7)

  Ball bearings (miniature)

  Thailand

  1990(OJ 1990 L281/1)

  Silk typewriter ribbon fabrics

  China

  1990(OJ 1990 L306/21)

  Polyolefin woven bags

  China

  1990 (OJ 1990 L318/2)

  Video cassettes

  Hong Kong

  1990 (OJ 1990 L343/1)

  Ferro-Silicon

  Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Venezuela, Yugoslavia

  1990 (OJ 1990 L38/1)

  Potassium permanganate

  Czechoslovakia

  1990 (OJ 1990 L42/1)

  Tubes of alloy or non-alloy steel

  Romania, Yugoslavia

  1990 (OJ 1990 L91/8)

  DRAMS

  Japan

  1991 (OJ 1990 L193/1)

  Ferro-silicon

  Brazil

  1991 (OJ 1991 L111/1)

  Audio cassettes

  Japan, South Korea

  1991(OJ 1991 L116/35)

  Aspartame

  Japan, USA

  1991(OJ 1991 L134/1

  Linear tungsten halogen lamps

  Japan

  1991(OJ 1991 L14/1)

  476

  Definitive anti-dumping duties imposed in the European Union 1984 to date

  Product

  Exporting country

  Definition duty imposed (Official journey reference)

  Espadrilles

  China

  1991 (OJ 1991 L166/1)

  Artificial corundum

  China, Ukraine, Russia

  1991 (OJ 1991 L235/1)

  Small screen colour televisions

  South Korea

  1991 (OJ 1991 L275/24)

  Video tapes in cassettes

  China

  1991 (OJ 1991 L293/2)

  Pocket lighters, gas-fuelled

  China, South Korea, Thailand, Japan

  1991 (OJ 1991 L326/1)

  Oxalic acid

  India, China

  1991 (OJ 1991 L326/6)

  Dihydrostreptomycin

  China

  1991 (OJ 1991 L362/1)

  Barium chloride

  China

  1991 (OJ 1991 L60/1)

  EPROMS (semi-conductors)

  Japan

  1991 (OJ 1991 L65/1)

  Urea

  Venezuela

  1991 (OJ 1991 L81/1)

  Welded tubes of iron or non-alloy steel

  Turkey, Venezuela

  1991 (OJ 1991 L91/1)

  Video cassettes

  Hong Kong

  1992 (OJ 1992 L139/1)

  Semi-finished products of alloy steel

  Turkey, Brazil

  1992 (OJ 1992 L182/23)

  Video cassettes

  Hong Kong

  1992 (OJ 1992 L182/6)

  Sheet and plates of iron or steel

  Mexico, Yugoslavia

  1992 (OJ 1992 L221/36)

  Silicon metal

  Brazil

  1992 (OJ 1992 L222/1)

  Car radios

  South Korea

  1992 (OJ 1992 L222/8)

  Ball bearings (> 30mm)

  Japan

  1992 (OJ 1992 L286/2)

  Monosodium glutamate

  Indonesia

  1992 (OJ 1992 L299/40)

  Synthetic fibres of polyesters

  Taiwan, Turkey, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia

  1992 (OJ 1992 L306/1)

  Potassium chloride

  USSR

  1992 (OJ 1992 L308/41)

  Large aluminium electrolytic capacitors

  Japan

  1992 (OJ 1992 L353/1)

  Ferro-silicon

  Egypt, Poland

  1992 (OJ 1992 L369/1)

  Thermal paper

  Japan

  1992 (OJ 1992 L81/1)

  Cotton yarn (non-retail)

  Brazil, Turkey

  1992 (OJ 1992 L82/1)

  Electronic scales

  Japan

  1993 (OJ 1993 L104/4)

  Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel

  Hungary, Poland, Croatia

  1993 (OJ 1993 L120/34)

  Magnesium oxide

  China

  1993 (OJ 1993 L145/1)

  Bicycles

  China

  1993 (OJ 1993 L228/1)

  Low carbon ferro-chrome

  Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine

  1993 (OJ 1993 L246/1)

  Monosodium glutamate

  Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, Korea

  1993 (OJ 1993 L255/1)

  477

  Definitive anti-dumping duties imposed in the European Union 1984 to date

  Product

  Exporting country

  Definition duty imposed (Official journey reference)

  3/" microdisks

  Japan, Taiwan, China

  1993 (OJ 1993 L262/14)

  Electronic weighing scales

  Singapore, South Korea

  1993 (OJ 1993 L263/1)

  Cotton yarn

  Turkey, Brazil

  1993 (OJ 1993 L289/1)

  Ferro-silicon

  USSR, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Venezuela, Yugoslavi, Brazil

  1993 (OJ 1993 L302/1)

  Deadburned magnesia

  China

  1993 (OJ 1993 L306/16)

  Photo albums

  China

  1993 (OJ 1993 L3 33/67)

  DRAMs

  South Korea

  1993 (OJ 1993 L66/1)

  Synthetic fibres of polyesters

  India, South Korea

  1993 (OJ 1993 L9/2)

  Outer rings of tapered roller bearings

  Japan

  1993 (OJ 1993 L9/7)

  Pig iron

  Turkey, USSR, Brazil, Poland

  1994 (OJ 1993 L182/37)

  Ferro silicon

  China and South Africa

  1994 (OJ 1994 L77)

  Potassium permanganate

  China

  1994 (OJ 1994 L298)

  Television camera systems

  Japan

  1994 (OJ 1994 L111/106;

  Large aluminium electrolytic capacitors

  Korea, Taiwan

  1994 (OJ 1994 L152/1)

  Cotton yarn

  Turkey

  1994 (OJ 1994 L191)

  Calcium metal

  China, Russia

  1994 (OJ 1994 L207/27)

  3/" magnetic disks

  Hong Kong, Korea

  1994 (OJ 1994 L236/2)

  Artificial corundum

  China

  1994 (OJ 1994 L270)

  Calcium metal

  China and Russia

  1994 (OJ 1994 L270)

  Ethanolamine

  USA

  1994 (OJ 1994 L28/40)

  Furazolidone

  China

  1994 (OJ 1994 L285/1)

  Fluorspar

  China

  1994 (OJ 1994 L62/1)

  Ferro-silicon

  China, South Africa

  1994 (OJ 1994 L77/48)

  Potassium choloride

  USSR

  1994 (OJ 1994 L80/1)

  Isobutanol

  Russia

  1994 (OJ 1994 L87/3)

  Silicon carbide

  China, Poland, Russian Federation, Ukraine

  1994 (OJ 1994 L94/21)

  Ferro-silicon

  Venezuela, Brazil, Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine

  1995 (OJ 1995 L 118)

  Furfuraldehyde

  China

  1995 (OJ 1995 L 15)

  Ammonium nitrate

  Russia

  1995 (OJ 1995 L198)

  478

  Definitive anti-dumping duties imposed in the European Union 1984 to date

  Product

  Exporting country

  Definition duty imposed (Official journey reference)

  Plain paper photocopiers

  Japan

  1995 (OJ 1995 L 244)

  Urea

  Russia

  1995 (OJ 1995 L 49)

  Disposable lighters

  China

  1995 (OJ 1995 L101)

  Sodium carbonate

  USA

  1995 (OJ 1995 L244)

  Ferro-silico-manganese

  Brazil, South Africa, Russia and Ukraine

  1995 (OJ 1995 L248)

  Electronic weighing scales

  South Korea and Sinapore

  1995 (OJ 1995 L307)

  Persulphates

  China

  1995 (OJ 1995 L308)

  Colour televisions

  South Korea, China, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand

  1995 (OJ 1995 L73)

  Pig iron

  Czech Republic

  1996 (OJ 1996 L12)

  Unwrought magnesium

  Russia and Ukraine

  1996 (OJ 1996 L174)

  Activated powdered carbon

  China

  1996 (OJ 1996 L192)

  Refractory chamottes

  China

  1996 (OJ 1996 L21)

  Synthetic fibres of polyester

  Turkey

  1996 (OJ 1996 L272)

  Polyester textured filament yarn

  Indonesia and Thailand

  1996 (OJ 1996 L289)

  Grain oriented electrical sheets

  Russia

  1996 (OJ 1996 L42)

  Polyester staple fibres

  Belarus

  1996 (OJ 1996 L54)

  Butt welding tubes

  China, Croatia and Thailand

  1996 (OJ 1996 L84)

  Bicycles

  Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand

  1996 (OJ 1996 L91)

  Floppy disks

  Malaysia, Mexico and the USA

  1996 (OJ 1996 L92)

  Ring binder mechanisms

  Malaysia and China

  1997 (OJ 1997 L22)

  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated year for decommissioning for each of the nuclear power stations in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17963]

  Mr. Page
  Decommissioning of a nuclear power station is a matter for the operator, taking into account the requirements of the regulatory authorities. This includes details of timing.

  Army Sales
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of British arms sales to overseas countries during 1996; and if he will make a statement. [17966]
  479
  Mr. Nelson
  Information on UK trade in defence equipment is not yet available for 1996. Information for pervious years is published in "UK Defence Statistics" which is available in the Library of the House.

  Research Grants
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the total amount of Government research grants allocated in each of the past five years to each university in (i) pharmacology, (ii) bio-physics, (iii) food hygiene and (iv) information technology. [17287]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 26 February 1997]: Information on Government spending is not held centrally, but the available information on grant funding awarded to universities by the research councils is given in tables, which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Minimum Age Requirements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the minimum age requirements enforced by his Department. [15921]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department sets out the following age requirements in primary legislation:

  Under the Explosives Act 1875, sections 31 and 39, it is an offence to sell gunpowder and other explosives, including fireworks to any person apparently under the age of 16.

  Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 50, it is an offence to send, with a view to financial gain, any document inviting a minor—a person under the age of 18—to borrow money, obtain goods on credit or hire, obtain services on credit or apply for information or advice on borrowing money for otherwise obtaining credit for hiring goods.

  Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, section 211, for the purposes of a redundancy payment, no period of employment counts until the employee has attained the age of 18.

  Privatisation Brochure
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report,column 329, how many inquiries have been received on the Government's telephone information services on (a) its regulatory policy and (b) its privatisation programme advertised in the document "Privatisation: Setting Enterprise Free." [17480]

  Mr. Lang
  The telephone numbers given in the publication "Privatisation: Setting Enterprise Free" are those of senior Treasury officials with a range of responsibilities which include providing information about the UK's regulatory policy and the UK's experience and expertise in the process of privatisation, particularly in response to inquiries from overseas. These contact points have been advertised for several years. No record has been kept of the number of specific inquiries each of the officials has received over the period.
  480
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report,column 329,if he will indicate the categories of (a) individuals and (b) organisations to whom copies of his privatisation document were sent. [17479]

  Mr. Lang
  Copies of the booklet, "Privatisation: Setting Enterprise Free", were sent to Members of Parliament, to delegates to the privatisation conference of 5 December, to the commercial sections of London diplomatic posts which were not represented at the conference, and to the commercial sections of UK diplomatic posts overseas.

  Copies have also been sent to others upon request.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report,column 329,what is the cost of operating the inquiry services on (a) UK regulatory policy and (b) the Government's privatisation policy advertised in "Privatisation: Setting Enterprise Free"; and how many staff are employed, at what cost in salaries, in each case. [17481]

  Mr. Lang
  Explaining regulatory policy forms a small part of the Treasury's work on utility regulation. Up to five people at various levels are involved in this work as necessary—the team also covers energy, competition and deregulation interests. The explanatory work incurs salary costs of no more than £10,000 per annum.

  As set out in the Government's second competitiveness White Paper, the Treasury promotes the export of UK expertise in privatisation through a dedicated unit. It devotes some 2.25 person years to this work at a salary cost of some £65,000 per annum.

  Science, Engineering and Technology
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the work of the women in science, engineering and technology unit; and if he will make a statement on the future of the unit. [18357]

  Mr. Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have considered the report on the first two year's work of the development unit on women in science, engineering and technology, and it is clear that considerable progress has been made on the recommendations in the "Rising Tide" report. Nevertheless, further work is required and we have decided that the unit should continue for a further period. A detailed announcement will be made in due course.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the growth in short-term appointments within the publicly funded science, engineering and technology base; and what actions he is taking to reduce the number of such appointments. [18358]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In principle, fixed-term contracts bring benefits to research and to researchers in terms of increased flexibility and opportunities. In recent years, there has been particularly strong growth in universities in research and in the number of research posts, most on a fixed-term basis. Tensions can arise where contract staff are, for whatever reasons, not as well managed as they might be.
  481
  We acknowledged the concerns in the 1993 White Paper "Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" and set out policies for addressing them. To implement these we have increased funding for the prestigious and longer-term university research fellowships, administered by the Royal Society. The research councils have also restructured and strengthened their fellowship provision.

  A significant achievement has been an agreement, or concordat, brokered by the Office of Science and Technology, between the research councils, the Royal Society and bodies representing the universities and colleges, which aims to improve the career management of contract research staff. This was launched in September last year, and has been widely welcomed. The research councils are committed to applying its principles to research staff in council institutes and units. The OST is discussing with other Government Departments the possible extension of principles in the concordat to the management of research staff in other public sector research establishments.

  Cecchini Report
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the extent to which the United Kingdom has realised the proposals set down in the Cecchini report. [18119]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: The Cecchini report of the 1988 considered the considerable potential benefits which might flow from the European single market. The European Commission completed last autumn a major review of the impact and effectiveness of the single market, which presented an assessment of its operation and the benefits which have accrued from it. The review concluded1 that employment opportunities, income per head, productivity, and competitiveness have all increased because there has been a single market, but that there was more which could still be done to complete it and to improve its working. The Commission is now preparing an action plan and timetable to take this forward. The Government have supported the objectives of the single market, welcomed the review, and support further steps to maximise its benefits.
  1The results of the review are summarised in Commission communication COM(96) 520 of 30 October 1996.

  Genetically Engineered Animals
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the United Kingdom patents which have been(a) granted and (b) applied for since 1 July 1995 in respect of (i) genetically engineered animals and (ii) the processes for creating such animals. [17828]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: There have been a total of three patent applications filed under the Patents Act 1977 and published since 1 July 1995 relating to genetically engineered animals and processes for preparing them. GB 2295395 relates to an animal model for Alzheimer's disease, GB 2291646 relates to transgenic fish and GB 2288807 relates to transgenic animals expressing an insecticidal protein. One application—GB 2265909—which was made before 1 July 1995, and which relates to a process for producing transgenic animals, has since been granted.
  482

  Research Councils (Employment)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many scientists were employed by(a) the Agriculture and Food Research Council and (b) the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council in each year from 1979 to the present. [17655]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: Science budget money freed up by institute restructuring will have been recycled for research purposes, either in institutes or universities where there has been significant growth in the number of researchers.

  The figures—staff in post—are shown in the table.

  Number of scientists employed in AFRC/BBSRC institutes— 1979 to 1996

  Year

  Number of scientists

  AFRC

  1979

  3,417

  1980

  3,360

  1981

  3,298

  1982

  3,371

  1983

  3,316

  1984

  3,326

  1985

  3,002

  1986

  2,997

  1987

  2,797

  1988

  2,726

  1989

  2,649

  1990

  2,588

  1991

  2,158

  1992

  2,190

  1993

  2,151

  BBSRC

  1994

  2,043

  1995

  1,979

  1996

  2,003

  Institute of Food Research
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many scientists were employed at the Institute of Food Research in each year from 1986 to the latest available date. [17657]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: Science budget money freed up by institute restructuring will have been recycled for research purposes, either in institutes or universities where there has been significant growth in the number of researchers.

  The figures—staff in post—are shown in the table.

  Number of scientists employed at IFR—1986 to 1996

  Year

  Number of scientists

  1985–86

  534

  1986–87

  514

  1987–88

  517

  1988–89

  463

  1989–90

  425

  1990–91

  308

  1991–92

  338

  1992–93

  335

  1993–94

  303

  1994–95

  313

  1995–96

  316

  483

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Disarmament
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress being made at the conference on disarmament to start negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. [18220]

  Mr. David Davis
  A work programme for the 1997 session of the conference on disarmament is under discussion in Geneva. We are pressing for negotiations to begin on a fissile material cut-off treaty as a priority.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 1996,Official Report,column 321,if he will make a statement on progress in preparing draft legislation in respect of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. [18256]

  Mr. Davis
  Preparatory work on legislation needed for the United Kingdom to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty continues. We hope to include it in the next parliamentary session.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of the Hong Kong gold and foreign currency reserves on the date of signing the China-UK agreement on the future of Hong Kong. [18082]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Sino-British joint declaration was signed on 19 December 1984. At the end of December 1984, the value of gold reserves held by the Hong Kong Government was HK$439 million or approximately £49 million at the then exchange rate of £1=HK$9.0344. The value of foreign currency reserves, excluding gold reserves, was HK$50,151 million or £15,550 million.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of gold and foreign currency reserves held by the Hong Kong authorities. [18110]

  Mr. Hanley
  At the end of January 1997, the value of gold reserves held by the Hong Kong Government was HK$182 million or approximately £15 million at the then exchange rate of £1=HK$12.4216. The value of foreign currency reserves, excluding the gold reserves, was HK$510,200 million or £41,070 million.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he arrived and departed from Hong Kong during his recent visit; what official meetings he had; and with whom. [18353]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I arrived in Hong Kong on Saturday 15 February and departed on Monday 17 February. I held meetings with the Governor of Hong Kong and senior Hong Kong Government officials including the Chief Secretary Mrs. Anson Chan; with the chief executive designate of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Mr. C. H. Tung; with members of staff at the British Trade Commission and of the office of the British senior representative, Sino-British joint liaison group; and with members of the Executive and Legislative Councils.
  484

  European Union Offices (Costs)
  Mr. Lamont
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representative offices, where some staff have diplomatic immunity, the EU has around the world; what are their running costs; how many staff they employ; and what proposals he has to bring about reductions in the cost of the offices and the number of staff. [18092]

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Commission has 128 representative offices overseas, employing about 2,400 personnel of which some 600 are Brussels-based Commission officials. The granting of diplomatic privileges and immunities for the staff of the representative office is a matter of local custom. For 1996, the budget for the representative offices was £152 million, inclusive of salaries and running costs.

  We take every opportunity to press for the terms of service of Commission officials to take full account of the tight budgetary constraints which affect all EU member Governments.

  Mr. Lamont
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the EU will be spending(a) in the current year and (b) in each of the next five years, on publicity and information offices; and what plans he has to bring about reductions in these amounts. [18093]

  Mr. Davis
  There is an overall budget of 110,800,000 ecu for all EU information and communication activities in 1997. The budget is set annually and so spending for the next five years has not yet been fixed. The Council agreed to cuts in this budget for 1997, but spending was restored by the European Parliament.

  Iran
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the encouragement of trade with Iran. [17883]

  Mr. Hanley
  There are restrictions on the sale of military, dual-use and other such goods to Iran as announced by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), on 1 March 1993,Official Report,column 8.Otherwise, we engage in normal trade.

  Burma (Trade)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the European Commission's proposal to withdraw preferences for Burma under the generalised system of preferences. [18231]

  Mr. David Davis
  Our priority on Burma is to promote economic and political reform. We are considering the Commission's proposal on GSP against this background. The Council of Ministers has not yet been asked to take a decision.
  485

DEFENCE

  Findlay Court Martial
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response the Government are making to the European Court of Human Rights judgment on the Findlay court-martial case; and if he will make a statement. [18699]

  Mr. Soames
  The Government fully support the court-martial system as the appropriate and necessary framework within which to deal with military discipline.

  We have recently made a number of changes to reform aspects of the court-martial system as part of the Armed Forces Act 1996. As I said when announcing our preliminary proposals in the Armed Forces Bill to the House on 7 December 1995—Official Report, columns 346–47—the changes represent a valuable and coherent package of reforms and improvements to take the court-martial system into the next century. The new arrangements will enable it to continue to meet the armed forces' requirement to administer justice firmly but fairly.

  Although the court found the United Kingdom to be in violation of article 6(1) of the European convention on human rights, the court has recognised our action in reforming the court-martial system, and in its judgment describes the changes we have made, noting with satisfaction that we have done so. The court made clear that its judgment applies to the system that existed before the reforms we have made. These are due to be introduced on 1 April 1997.

  RAF Accident Investigation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made to the procedures and regulations governing Royal Air Force accident investigation and the role of senior officers in relation to board of inquiry findings since June 1994. [17989]

  Mr. Soames
  The following changes have taken place since June 1994:

  (a) The minimum rank of the president of a board of inquiry into an aircraft accident has been raised from Flight Lieutenant to Squadron Leader.

  (b) The role of the relevant Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief in the investigation has been titled "Reviewing Authority" (it was previously untitled).

  (c) Assessment of the degree of negligence has been transferred from the president of the board of inquiry to the convening and reviewing authorities.

  (d) An intermediate degree of negligence has been introduced, such that negligence is now described as "minor", "major" or "gross".

  (e) Differences in the rules on representation at boards of inquiry for service men and service women were removed.

  (f) Persons affected were given the right to make a further statement if the degree of negligence attributed by one authority was increased by another.

  486

  West Indian Guardship
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to public funds of the West Indian guardship for the year 1996. [17961]

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of the West Indies guardship for the year 1996 was £7.22 million. Her associated Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker was provided at a cost of £2.38 million.

  Civilian Affairs Units
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian affairs units are established in the field Army; how many personnel are assigned to these units; and what are his plans to expand or establish additional units for this role. [17986]

  Mr. Soames
  A civil affairs group is currently being established. This will comprise of four Regular and 50 Territorial Army specialists. There are currently no plans to establish additional units.

  Scimitars (Parachute Dropping)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects approval to be given for parachute dropping of Scimitar CVR(T) vehicles from RAF Hercules aircraft; and if he will list the locations where parachute dropping of Scimitars will be permitted. [17988]

  Mr. Soames
  There has been no capability for the parachute dropping of Scimitar CVR(T)s since the mid-70s. However, approval for the dropping of Scimitars from RAF Hercules aircraft has been granted for the purposes of trials of a re-engineered parachute delivery system for heavy equipment. The trial drop zone locations are all within the Larkhill/Salisbury plain military training area. The trials are due to conclude later this year. Subject to a satisfactory outcome, the equipment will be dropped on routine airborne exercises at locations judged technically and operationally suitable.

  Visual Air-to-air Training
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current weather minima for visual air-to-air training by Royal Air Force Tornado F3 aircraft at less than 5,000 feet above ground level, in terms of(a) discernibility of the horizon, (b) in-flight visibility, (c) cloud ceiling and (d) vertical and horizontal separation from cloud; and if he will list changes made to these criteria in the last five years. [17992]

  Mr. Soames
  The current weather minima for visual air-to-air training by Royal Air Force Tornado F3 aircraft at less than 5,000 ft above ground level are that(a) there are clear visual meteorological conditions enabling pilots to orientate themselves; (b) there is a minimum in-flight visibility of 5,000 overland and 8,000 over sea; (c) any cloud base is no lower than 1,500 ft; and (d) the pilot is able to maintain 1,500 m horizontal and 1,000 ft vertical separation from cloud. There have been no changes to these criteria in the past five years.
  487

  NATO (Extension)
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the(a) political and (b) strategic advantages of the extension of NATO to include the states of Eastern Europe. [17977]

  Mr. Soames
  The study on NATO enlargement, published by the Alliance in September 1995, concluded that political and strategic benefits would result from extending membership of NATO to European states. We continue to support that conclusion.

  Media Units
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many media units are established in the field Army; how many personnel are assigned to these units; and what are his plans to expand or establish additional units for this role. [17985]

  Mr. Soames
  Although there are no units established for this specific purpose, 87 military and civilian staff are currently providing support to media operations within the Army. This number may increase to reflect the current level of operational commitments.

  Aircraft (Visual Practice Interceptions)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the minimum vertical and horizontal separation distances between intercepting aircraft and their targets when conducting visual practice interceptions of(a) other fast jet aircraft, (b) military transport aircraft, (c) civil transport aircraft and (d) helicopters. [17991]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is as follows:

  Type

  MSD1 (feet)

  Remarks

  Fast jet target

  1,000

  MSD becomes 500 feet if closing for simulated gun attack astern of target.

  Military transport aircraft

  1,000

  —

  Civil transport target

  See remark

  Standard civil air traffic minimum separation requirements of 1,000 feet vertically and 3 nautical miles (nm) horizontally apply

  Helicopter target

  1,000

  —

  1 Minimum separation distance.

  School Armouries and Firing Ranges
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by the Ministry of Defence since 1984 on school armouries and firing ranges on school grounds; and if he will list the cost and name of each school involved. [17884]

  Mr. Soames
  I regret that the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Meetings (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what official meetings he held during his recent visit to Hong Kong; and when he(a) arrived and (b) departed. [18352]
  488
  Mr. Portillo
  During my visit to Hong Kong I met the Governor, the Commander British Forces and a wide range of personnel from the garrison. I arrived at 08.50 on 26 February, and departed at 19.30 the same day.

  Minimum Age Requirements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the minimum age requirements enforced by his Department. [15923]

  Mr. Soames
  For service personnel, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 30 January,Official Report,columns 348–49.The minimum age of recruitment for civilians is the school leaving age of 16.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's latest assessment of the capability of Russia to destroy safely its stockpile of chemical weapons; [18280]

  (2) what is his Department's latest assessment of the capability of the United States of America to destroy safely its stockpile of chemical weapons. [18279]

  Mr. Soames
  The Russian Federation signed the chemical weapons convention in the full knowledge of the destruction timetable it would be obliged to meet under the terms of the convention. However, Russia has yet to ratify the convention and, until it does so, it is not bound by these provisions. Although Russian fulfilment of these obligations is feasible, some technical difficulties are still to be overcome. The Russians also claim that they would not be able to do so due to financial and environmental problems, and continue to press for outside financial assistance. The UK believes it is for the Russian Government to resolve these difficulties. Early ratification of the CWC and full implementation of its provisions, may, however, help to secure financial assistance from the outside.

  Although the United States has not yet ratified the chemical weapons convention, it is obliged by national legislation to destroy its stockpile of chemical weapons by 2004. This date is earlier than will be required if the US ratifies the CWC before entry into force. We have no reason to believe that the United States does not have the capability or political will to meet this goal.

  BATES
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the original estimated cost of the battlefield artillery target engagement system when the project was originally undertaken; and what was the total outturn cost of the BATES 1 facility; [18224]

  (2) what was the original estimated cost of the BATES 2 project; what has been the total expenditure on it to date; and what is the latest total estimated outcome cost of the BATES 2 facility. [18225]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The release of cost figures for BATES phase 1 would prejudice continuing negotiations with the contractor and I am therefore withholding them under exemption 7 of the "practice on access to Government information". BATES phase 2 is expected to cost about
  489
  £80 million, slightly less than the original estimated cost. Less than £1 million remains to be spent.

TREASURY

  EU Member States (National Accounts)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the accounting treatments being adopted by each EU member state in their 1996 and 1997 national accounts which differ from United Kingdom practice; and what assessment he has made of the expected effect of each difference. [15333]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Shaw, dated 3 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question on the accounting treatments being adopted by each EU member state in their 1996 and 1997 national accounts which differ from United Kingdom practice; and what assessment he has made of the expected effect of each difference.
  There is a requirement for certain statistics relating to European Monetary Union convergence to be compiled and reported to Eurostat in line with the European System of Accounts, second edition (ESA79). For the purposes of excess deficit criteria, the European System of Accounts (ESA95) Regulation 2223/96 requires that 1 September 1999 reports will be the last to be submitted on an ESA79 basis.
  ESA79 is used as the basis for accounting treatment for the debt and deficit criteria for EMU. There are some differences in treatment between member states. In these cases, in order to ensure better comparability for the debt and deficit procedure, after consultation with statistical experts from member states, The Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) takes decisions on methodological rules to be applied by member states. Eurostat visits member states to check compliance with these rules. However, no specific assessment has been, or could realistically be, made of the effects of differences in treatment in other countries' own accounts from UK practice. UK accounting treatment is described in United Kingdom National Accounts—The Blue Book,published annually by the Office for National Statistics.
  Council Directive 89/130/EEC, Euratom, of 13 February 1989 (known as "the GNP Directive") requires that member states provide data on Gross National Product at market prices (GNPmp) on an ESA79-basis for own resource purposes annually to the Commission. The Directive also requires member states to provide the Commission (Eurostat) with an inventory of the procedures and basic statistics used to calculate GNPmp and its components. The GNP Committee has the job of examining compliance of GNPmp data with ESA79 definitions, and examining the statistical sources and the procedures used for calculating GNPmp and its components.
  Data for 1996 have not yet been compiled by member states. What treatment has been adopted—and any differences between countries—will not become clear until these accounts are published, or submitted to Eurostat. Therefore any comparison of differences in treatment between the UK and other member states could not yet be done for latest years.
  For the national accounts in general, in advance of the introduction of ESA95, there is no statutory framework which determines treatment to be adopted by each member state in their national accounts as a whole. As I mention above, Eurostat does however maintain copies of inventories describing the procedures and basic statistics in that part of the accounts used to calculate
  490
  data on Gross National Product at market prices (GNPmp) and its components, required under the GNP Directive for own resource purposes.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department estimates it cost to establish each executive agency set up by his Department since the start of April 1992. [16976]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The costs involved in the setting up of the executive agencies of the Chancellor's Departments have been included in the published running costs for the years in which the agencies were established.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that the United Kingdom may enter European currency union without an accompanying fiscal union among participating member states. [17044]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Yes. If the United Kingdom were to join EMU we could face sanctions if we were consistently to run up budget deficits of more than three per cent. of GDP and do nothing to correct them. Within that constraint, our budgetary choices would rightly remain a matter for national Governments and Parliaments.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress being made by each of the countries of the European Union in meeting the convergence criteria for EMU in 1996. [18123]

  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 28 February 19971:Most countries made progress towards meeting the convergence criteria for EMU in 1996. On the information available at present, my judgment is that it is very unlikely, though not impossible, that performance against the criteria will be sufficiently clear and sustainable for EMU to proceed on 1 January 1999.

  Excess Winter Mortality Rates
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what have been the excess winter mortality rates for each of the last 10 years expressed in terms of excess(a) numbers and (b) percentages for (i) people over the age of 65 years, (ii) single parent families, (iii) people in receipt of income support, (iv) people with disabilities and (v) others; [17431]

  (2) what have been the excess winter mortality rates in England for the past 10 years expressed (a) in excess numbers and (b) as percentages. [17423]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 3 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what have been the excess winter mortality rates in England for the last 10 years expressed in (a) in excess numbers and (b) as percentages.
  491
  The figures you requested are shown in the following table:

  Excess winter deaths, England, all persons, all ages

  Period

  Excess winter deaths

  Excess winter deaths index

  1986–87

  24,654

  14.8

  1987–88

  31,493

  18.7

  1988–89

  20,326

  12.1

  1989–90

  44,370

  26.5

  1990–91

  35,718

  21.6

  1991–92

  33,015

  20.1

  1992–93

  24,194

  14.6

  1993–94

  25,029

  14.7

  1994–95

  25,757

  15.6

  1995–961

  37,990

  23.1

  1 Provisional.

  Excess Winter Deaths are defined as the number of deaths in the four months from December to March, minus the average of the numbers in the preceding autumn (August-November) and the following summer (April-July).

  The Excess Winter Deaths Index is the number of excess winter deaths expressed as a percentage of the average of the number of deaths in the autumn and the summer periods.

  You also asked for the excess winter mortality rates for each of the last 10 years expressed in terms of excess (a) the numbers and (b) percentages for (i) people over the age of 65 years, (ii) single parent families, (iii) people in receipt of income support, (iv) people with disabilities and (v) others.

  Information on parental status, income, or physical impairment is not collected at death registration and we are therefore unable to provide data in terms of these characteristics.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the weekly number of excess deaths for December 1996 and January 1997; and what were the figures for the same periods in each of the last five years. [17382]

  Mrs. Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 3 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question asking for the weekly number of excess deaths for December 1996 and January 1997, and the figures for the same periods in each of the last five years.
  The data on deaths by week of occurrence for England are shown in the tables below:

  Week beginning

  Deaths

  December 1991 to January 1992

  25 November 1991

  10,475

  2 December 1991

  10,289

  9 December 1991

  11,477

  16 December 1991

  12,126

  23 December 1991

  12,287

  30 December 1991

  13,106

  6 January 1992

  12,696

  13 January 1992

  11,970

  20 January 1992

  11,567

  27 January 1992

  12,002

  December 1992 to January 1993

  30 November 1992

  10,397

  7 December 1992

  10,395

  14 December 1992

  10,664

  21 December 1992

  11,313

  28 December 1992

  12,082

  492

  Week beginning

  Deaths

  4 January 1993

  12,673

  11 January 1993

  11,716

  18 January 1993

  10,978

  25 January 1993

  10,781

  December 1993 to January 1994

  29 November 1993

  13,197

  6 December 1993

  12,603

  13 December 1993

  12,302

  20 December 1993

  12,085

  27 December 1993

  12,554

  3 January 1994

  12,447

  10 January 1994

  11,816

  17 January 1994

  11,493

  24 January 1994

  11,045

  31 January 1994

  10,988

  December to January 1995

  28 November 1994

  9,785

  5 December 1994

  10,528

  12 December 1994

  10,690

  19 December 1994

  11,523

  26 December 1994

  12,292

  2 January 1995

  12,193

  9 January 1995

  11,682

  16 January 1995

  11,543

  23 January 1995

  11,609

  30 January 1995

  11,055

  December 1995-January 19961

  27 November 1995

  11,452

  4 December 1995

  11,676

  11 December 1995

  12,535

  18 December 1995

  13,569

  25 December 1995

  14,191

  1 January 1996

  14,528

  8 January 1996

  13,079

  15 January 1996

  11,525

  22 January 1996

  11,467

  29 January 1996

  11,294

  December 1996-January 19971

  25 November 1996

  10,013

  2 December 1996

  10,276

  9 December 1996

  10,769

  16 December 1996

  12,116

  23 December 1996

  13,544

  30 December 1996

  16,002

  6 January 1997

  16,044

  13 January 1997

  14,242

  20 January 1997

  12,482

  27 January 1997

  11,341

  1 Provisional data.

  Annual weekly average

  Number

  1991

  10,269

  1992

  10,051

  1993

  10,406

  1994

  9,954

  1995

  10,242

  1996

  110,164

  1 Provisional.

  I hope this reply has been helpful.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the performance of the Inland Revenue
  493
  p>since 31 March 1996 in meeting its targets for (a) personal callers, (b) telephone calls, (c) repayment claims and (d) correspondence. [17891]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue does not publish its performance against annual targets until results covering the full period are available and appropriate validation and checking of figures has been carried out.

  On latest provisional information, the Department is broadly on course to meet or exceed its annual targets for personal callers, telephone calls and repayment claims, but it is unlikely to achieve its correspondence target.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual cost to public funds of mortgage interest tax relief at(a) 20 per cent. and (b) 23 per cent. [17857]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated total cost of mortgage interest tax relief in 1997–98 is £2.4 billion. The rate of relief is 15 per cent. If the rate of relief were 20 per cent. the extra cost to the Exchequer would be about £800 million. If the rate of relief was 23 per cent. the extra cost would be about £1.3 billion.

  These estimates are based on the assumption, by convention, of no change from the current estimated average building society interest rate of 6.51 per cent.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost to public funds of increasing the amount of a mortgage allowable for tax from £30,000 to £60,000, assuming no other changes to the tax system. [17858]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated total cost of mortgage interest tax relief in 1997–98 is £2.4 billion. Relief is limited to the interest on loans of £30,000. if the limit was increased to £60,000, and the rate of relief remained at 15 per cent. the extra cost to the Exchequer would be about £900 million.

  The estimate is based on the assumption, by convention, of no change from the current estimated average building society interest rate of 6.51 per cent.

  Inflation and Unemployment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report,column 577,what assessment he has made of the contribution of (a) indirect taxes and (b) imported raw material prices to recent reductions in inflation and unemployment. [17907]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Indirect taxes and imported raw material prices are just two of the many factors that affect inflation and unemployment. In particular, the appropriate use of monetary policy and labour market reforms have played an important role in achieving recent reductions in inflation and unemployment. It is difficult to quantify the precise effects of each of these factors.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will translate the PSBR figures in table 4A.8 of the Red Book into cash terms. [18127]
  494
  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: The table shows the figures requested.

  Historical series for the PSBR

  £ million

  1965–66

  0.9

  1966–67

  1.1

  1967–68

  2.0

  1968–69

  0.4

  1969–70

  -0.6

  1970–71

  0.8

  1971–72

  1.0

  1972–73

  2.4

  1973–74

  4.3

  1974–75

  8.0

  1975–76

  10.3

  1976–77

  8.3

  1977–78

  5.4

  1978–79

  9.2

  1979–80

  9.9

  1980–81

  12.5

  1981–82

  8.6

  1982–83

  8.9

  1983–84

  9.7

  1984–85

  10.1

  1985–86

  5.6

  1986–87

  3.6

  1987–88

  -3.5

  1988–89

  -14.7

  1989–90

  -8.0

  1990–91

  -0.6

  1991–92

  13.8

  1992–93

  36.3

  1993–94

  45.4

  1994–95

  35.9

  1995–96

  31.7

  1996–97

  26.4

  1997–98

  19.2

  1998–99

  12

  1999–00

  3

  2000–01

  -8

  2001–02

  -18

  Adlids
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contracts the Inland Revenue has with Adlids; what are the costs, nature and duration of these contracts; what procedures were used to enter into the contracts; and what assessment the Inland Revenue has made of the benefits of the contracts with Adlids. [18003]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 February 1997]: The Inland Revenue made a one-off payment of £30,000 for self-assessment information to be printed on 3 million take-away lids.

  The "contract" was negotiated via Ardent, one of a number of promotions agencies working on a range of projects to help target self-assessment information to those affected. A 50 per cent. discount was negotiated on normal rates charged by Adlids.

  According to research, 60 per cent. of self-employed manual trades people, a key audience for self-assessment information, regularly eat Chinese take-aways. At the cost of 1p per lid, this was a cost-effective and highly targeted way of delivering self-assessment information in an unusual and striking way.
  495
  Besides the lids themselves being seen by those likely to be affected by self-assessment, the idea achieved some very positive press coverage.

  Unemployment Leavers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of those leaving the unemployment register went into(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment in each year since 1979; [16765]

  (2) how many of those leaving the register of those unemployed and entitled to claim benefit went into (a) full-time employment, (b) part-time employment, (c) permanent employment and (d) temporary employment in (i) England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland (iv) Northern Ireland and (v) each standard English region in the last year for which figures are available. [16895]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 20 February 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 3 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your questions (16765 and 16895) on how many of those leaving claimant unemployment went into full-time, part-time, temporary and permanent employment in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and each standard English region in the last year.
  The figures in the attached tables show the number of claimants who left the claimant count and went into work in 1995 and 1996 for each standard statistical region in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Information on the destination of claimants from the claimant count is not available prior to January 1995 and no information is available on the type of employment found.
  The 'unknown' destinations category shown in the table includes claimants whose claims were terminated because they stopped signing at their Employment Service jobcentre, together with claimants who did not supply a reason for stopping their claim.

  Destination of leavers from the claimant count by standard statistical region

  Region

  Destination of leavers (thousand)

  Found work

  Other known destinations

  Unknown destinations

  All leavers

  1996

  South East

  489.4

  198.8

  361.5

  1,047.6

  East Anglia

  74.5

  23.1

  25.6

  123.3

  South West

  167.2

  58.4

  71.8

  297.4

  West Midlands

  166.3

  69.6

  85.3

  321.2

  East Midlands

  138.5

  48.9

  56.3

  243.7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  198.2

  77.2

  82.9

  358.3

  North West

  233.8

  102.3

  108.6

  444.7

  North

  143.7

  56.0

  39.3

  239.0

  England

  1,611.5

  632.5

  831.3

  3,057.3

  Wales

  108.0

  41.5

  39.3

  188.8

  Scotland

  216.5

  82.5

  87.9

  387.0

  Northern Ireland

  54.8

  31.0

  21.7

  107.6

  1995

  South East

  522.1

  217.2

  381.3

  1,120.5

  East Anglia

  79.3

  24.2

  26.8

  130.3

  South West

  175.9

  65.3

  77.5

  318.7

  West Midlands

  176.6

  74.7

  86.4

  337.6

  East Midlands

  142.9

  53.2

  58.3

  254.4

  496

  Destination of leavers from the claimant count by standard statistical region

  Region

  Destination of leavers (thousands)

  Found work

  Other known destinations

  Unknown destinations

  All leavers

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  200.4

  83.6

  83.3

  367.3

  North West

  244.7

  106.8

  110.0

  461.4

  North

  150.7

  60.7

  39.6

  251.0

  England

  1,692.5

  685.7

  863.1

  3,241.2

  Wales

  112,3

  43.7

  39.3

  195.3

  Scotland

  224.9

  85.9

  88.2

  399.0

  Northern Ireland

  55.4

  29.2

  21.4

  106.0

  Source:

  JUVOS.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16746]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 20 February 1997]: This is a matter for the management of the bodies concerned.

  Average Weekly Earnings
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest available figures for average weekly earnings in(a) Wales and (b) the United Kingdom for (i) males and (ii) females. [17088]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Sir Wyn Roberts, dated 3 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on average weekly earnings in Wales and the United Kingdom.
  In April 1996, average gross weekly earnings of full time employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence were as follows:

  Wales £

  United Kingdom £

  Males

  345.50

  389.90

  Females

  250.50

  282.30

  All

  313.10

  350.30

  This information is taken from the 1996 New Earning Survey conducted separately in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The results of the Great Britain survey are published in six volumes, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library. The results of the Northern Ireland survey can be obtained directly from the Department of Economic Development.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the latest estimates for gross domestic product per capita for 1996 at current market prices and purchasing power parities for(a) the United Kingdom and

  497
  (b) those of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for which information is available to him. [17432]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: Provisional estimates of gross domestic product per capita in 1996, measured at purchasing power parity, for the United Kingdom and other OECD countries can be found in the latest edition of the OECD publication, "Main Economic Indicators," which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on income tax levels of raising the revenue currently raised through council tax in Wales by an increase in the basic rate of income tax. [17868]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: The latest available year for income tax costings for Wales is for 1994–95. Welsh local authorities were budgeted to collect about £340 million of council tax in 1994–95. In order to raise this same level of revenue, the basic rate of tax would need to be increased by nearly 5p in Wales.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Millennium Exhibition
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate of the numbers of visitors which will be accommodated by the millennium exhibition at Greenwich. [16705]

  Mr. Freeman
  The exhibition's operation company, Millennium Central Limited, has set a target of more than 10 million visitors. The indicative budget produced before Christmas was developed on the basis of this target. It is intended that the site should be accessible to the largest possible number of people from all sections of the community.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Grounds
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the provision of sports grounds in England. [16696]

  Mr. Sproat
  The policy document, "Sport: Raising the Game," made clear our commitment to ensure that the best possible sporting facilities are in place to enable sportsmen and sportswomen to reach their full potential, and to develop sport at its grassroots level. The national lottery is already making a significant contribution supporting more than 2,500 projects totalling some £440 million to date.

  Museums and Galleries (Funding)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many current capital projects at museums and galleries are supported by Government resources. [16714]
  498
  Mr. Sproat
  There are currently 27 projects supported by Government resources at the museums and galleries directly funded by my Department. These projects, costing £54 million, are supported by £30 million of Government funding, which is additional to the massive injection of lottery funds into museums and galleries throughout the UK; so far, lottery grants of more than £400 million have been announced.

  Lottery Awards (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many projects in Worcestershire have won awards from national lottery funding bodies; what is the total value of these awards; and if she will make a statement. [16715]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To date, the national lottery distributing bodies have announced 122 awards to projects in Hereford and Worcester for a total of £26.3 million. Eighty-seven of these, worth a total of £18.2 million, fall within the boundaries of Worcestershire as it will be defined from 1 April.

  British Waterways
  Sir. Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage is she will make a statement on the support from the millennium fund to British Waterways. [16716]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Millennium Commission has supported one project from the British Waterways Board: the millennium link project to reinstate navigation between the Forth and Clyde and Union canals, which has been offered a grant of £32.2 million. The heritage lottery fund made an award of £25 million to the British Waterways Board for the Kennet and Avon canal.

  The commission has supported four other waterways projects: the Ribble link in Lancashire; the Rochdale canel; the Huddersfield narrow canal; and the new lock at Great Conard, Suffolk. In total, canal projects have been offered £61.8 million by the commission.

  Tourism (Midlands)
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on tourism in the midlands. [16717]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Tourism is an industry of vital importance to the midlands, as it is throughout Britain. In 1995 there were almost 20 million domestic and overseas visitor trips to the areas covered by the Heart of England and East Midlands tourist boards, generating revenue of almost £2,130 million.

  The industry in all parts of the country will benefit from the measures contained in the tourism strategy, success through partnership, which I announced on 5 February. The strategy sets out a co-ordinated action plan for Government, the industry and the tourist boards working in partnership to develop tourism to its full potential.

  Lottery Awards (Distribution)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will review the distribution of national lottery awards. [16718]
  499
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the distribution of national lottery awards. [16720]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The national lottery has been a great success. More than £3 billion has been raised for the good causes and more than 12,000 awards announced for more than 18,000 projects of all sizes in all parts of the United Kingdom. I am continuously considering how the system for the distribution of lottery funds might be improved and will continue to do so.

  Historic Churches
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the work that English Heritage has undertaken to preserve historic churches. [16719]

  Mr. Sproat
  Grants from English Heritage towards the preservation of historic churches and other ecclesiastical buildings are available for grade I and grade II* listed properties, and grade II listed properties in conservation areas. Over the five years from 1991 to 1996, English Heritage has provided £47.2 million in such grants, and aims to have spent a further £11.2 million in 1996–97.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the BBC's proposals for digital broadcasting. [16722]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I welcomed the BBC's overall digital strategy, outlined last May in its publication, "Extending Choice in the Digital Age." I have considered and given approval in principle, under the provisions of the BBC charter and agreement, to the BBC's initial proposals for public service digital television, the details of which are currently subject to public consultation by the BBC.

  Television Programmes (Quality)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will undertake a review of the quality of television programmes. [16724]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The monitoring of the quality of television programmes on independent television and the BBC is the responsibility of the Independent Television Commission and the BBC board of governors respectively. The ITC publishes an annual review of the performance of Channel 3 licensees and Channel 4 and the BBC governors report each year on the corporation's performance in the BBC annual report.

  British Academy of Sport
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to announce the site of the British academy of sport. [16702]

  Mr. Sproat
  We announced on 25 February that the preferred site for the British Academy of Sport will be chosen from three contenders: the Central Consortium, the Heyford Consortium and the Sheffield Consortium. These proposals will now be considered in more detail by the United Kingdom Sports Council and my Department.
  500

  Millennium Celebrations (Wales)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations she has had with bodies and individuals in Wales with respect to Welsh participation in official millennium celebrations. [16721]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My Department is consulting widely over millennium issues. The millennium co-ordination group, which is chaired by my Department, includes representatives from the Welsh Office. The Church Together in Wales is represented on the Lambeth sub-group which considers the spiritual aspects of the millennium.

  In addition, the Millennium Commission has sent its consultation document to all Welsh Members of Parliament, local authorities and local authority associations, the Welsh Office, and Welsh lottery distributors and to arts, sport and heritage bodies. Copies were also sent to the police, churches and voluntary associations in Wales and to companies in the entertainment industry, as well as to any individuals or groups who had inquired about the matter.

  New Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the proposed new national football and athletics stadium at Wembley. [17100]

  Mr. Sproat
  I welcome the decision announced by the Sports Council on 17 December 1996 that Wembley is to be the proposed site for the new 80,000 all-seater English national stadium for athletics, football, and rugby league, and will receive a lottery award of £120 million towards the total project costs of around £210 million. This decision is a good example of the Government's commitment to facilitate, through the national lottery, the development of the necessary sporting infrastructure to enable this country to attract to these shore top international events—such as the football World Cup in 2006 and the world athletics championships in either 2001 or 2003.

  Tourism Industry (Training)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of state for National Heritage what action she is taking to promote training in the tourism industry. [16706]

  Mr. Sproat
  Tourism has enormous potential for job creation: it creates one in five of all new jobs. As stated in our October publication, "People Working in Tourism and Hospitality," to deliver good service—more of the industry must recruit and retain the right people and equip them with the skills that they need. Our comprehensive new strategy for tourism, success through partnership, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched on 5 February, carries this work forward. It is clear from the many letters and comments that we have had already, that the industry particularly welcomes the fact that this is a joint initiative with them, with key targets and specific points for action on many aspects of tourism. As announced in the strategy, next month we shall issue a practical guide specifically for small tourism businesses which will include advice on training and developing staff.
  501

  Camelot
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will instruct Camelot to issue twice-weekly figures in cash terms for the amount(a) staked, (b) paid out in prizes, (c) paid out for good causes and (d) retained by Camelot. [17834]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 27 March 1997]: This is an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. I have—therefore—asked the director general of the national lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the lottery, to write to the hon. Member and to place copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail (Winding-up Costs)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when(a) the British Rail architecture design group and (b) British Rail businesses were wound up; if he will indicate in each case the number of employees (i) in total and (ii) in York one year before the wind-up date; and what sums were spent on (1) redundancy payments and (2) other costs associated with the winding-up of the businesses. [16644]

  Mr. Watts
  Details of the costs incurred by the British Railways Board on those businesses which were wound up as part of the privatisation process are a matter for the board itself.

  London Underground (Tunnel Structures)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 25 February,Official Report,column 165, if he will give a breakdown of the figure of £1.2 billion relating to the structures of tunnels. [18075]

  Sir George Young
  London Underground estimates that £350 million of its investment backlog relates to civil engineering works on the railway's infrastructure, including tunnels. It does not have a more specific figure for tunnels alone. London Underground has recently completed the refurbishment of the Northern line tunnels under the Thames and has re-lined the tunnels around Old Street station. Work on the Bakerloo and East London line tunnels is well under way.

  Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what publicity he intends to initiate regarding the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 in advance of its implementation. [17995]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have already publicised the Act and its implementation in the Driving Standards Agency magazine circulated to all approved driving instructors, motorcycle trainers and local road safety officers and have sent a guidance note to justices' clerks and justices' chief executives. Articles will appear in the literature distributed at theory test centres and given to all drivers and riders on passing the practical test. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's information leaflets, including the one sent to all provisional licence applicants, will also include references to the Act, as will the highway 502
  code when it is next re-issued. Further publicity events are being planned nearer to the date of implementation which is 1 June 1997.

  Bus Drivers (London)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many London bus drivers are currently in receipt of social security benefits; and what is the cost of this to public funds. [18442]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to reduce the number of accidents arising from lorries shedding their wheels. [18268]

  Mr. Bowis
  Following joint discussions with the Vehicle Inspectorate and the Association of Chief Police Officers, a nationwide survey of the extent of the problem is currently taking place and will continue until the end of April this year. The need for further action will be considered in light of the outcome of this study.

  We are also currently updating the Department's leaflet, first issued in 1991, giving further guidance to operators on measures for preventing wheel loss.

  Railtrack Land
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with Railtrack about(a) the maintenance of fencing, walls and hedges on its land and (b) the removal of litter and debris from such land; and if he will make a statement. [18437]

  Mr. Watts
  Maintenance of boundaries is a matter for Railtrack and enforcement of the relevant statutory duties is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. The Department has consulted Railtrack about proposals to transfer the litter duty which applied to the British Railways Board, to the relevant successor bodies, including Railtrack.

  London Underground (Finance)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made to(a) London Transport and (b) London Underground Ltd. in the last five years concerning ways in which they could increase revenue for London Underground operation by (i) better marketing and (ii) more commercial use of property; and what estimate he has made of the revenue potential of (i) and (ii). [18346]

  Mr. Bowis
  Marketing and the management and development of its property are operational matters for London Transport, which recognises its importance.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of 25 February,Official Report,column 157, what factors underlay his statement that operating surpluses on London Underground would grow substantially; and what sums he expects to be available for capital investment in the years 2000 to 2005. [18345]
  503
  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend's comments were based on London Underground's own forecasts of substantial growth in operating surpluses. Following privatisation, investment will be funded not only from these surpluses and continued Government support, but also from the recycling of privatisation proceeds and funds raised by the private sector. It is premature to speculate on the precise sums involved, but our overall aim is to modernise the underground's infrastructure within five years of privatisation.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requests were made by London Transport for capital funding for London Underground Ltd. and what amounts were provided from public funds for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96. [18351]

  Mr. Bowis
  London Transport submit to Ministers each year their views on their grant requirements for the forthcoming public expenditure round. The distribution of grant by LT between London Underground Ltd. and its other businesses is an operational matter for LT. The cash allocated to London Underground by LT from 1992–93 to 1995–96 is shown in the table. These figures exclude grant for the construction of the Jubilee line extension.

  £ million outturn prices

  Year

  Cash paid to London Underground Ltd.1

  1992–93

  598

  1993–94

  511

  1994–95

  413

  1995–96

  340

  1 Figures supplied by London Transport.

  London Underground (Privatisation)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place statutory limits on the re-sale of shares to those currently employed or contracted to London Underground Ltd. in the event of a management buy-out. [18349]

  Mr. Bowis
  Our proposals for encouraging employees and others to acquire a stake in the privatised London underground will be explained in the White Paper we plan to publish this summer.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral statement of 25 February,Official Report,columns 149–65, concerning London Underground Ltd., what (a) consultants and (b) advisers he intends to employ for what specific purposes and at what estimated costs; and from which vote such payments would be made. [18348]

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend intends shortly to commence the process of inviting bids for the provision of professional advice on the financial implications of privatisation of the London Underground, and of the options outlined in his statement. No estimates have yet been made of the cost of such an appointment; nor have decisions been taken on the vote from which such an appointment would be funded.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) of 25 February,Official Report,
  504
  column 161, concerning consultations over the privatisation of London Underground, if he will list those bodies he intends to consult and indicate for each the scope of such consultation. [18344]

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend intends to consult a wide range of bodies, including but not limited to London Transport, the Health and Safety Commission, the Rail Regulator, Office for Passenger Rail Franchising, the London Pride Partnership and the London Regional Passengers' Committee. Consultation will cover matters relevant or of concern to each body. We expect that many other bodies will also wish to let him have their views.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral statement of 25 February,Official Report,columns 149–64, on London Underground from what source he estimates that any privatised section of the activities of London Underground will provide funds for paying interest on capital borrowings (a) prior to and (b) subsequent to the completion of payment of receipts from shares being invested in capital improvements to improve structure or equipment. [18347]

  Mr. Bowis
  This would depend on the structure for privatisation chosen and on the arrangements made by the private sector operator concerned.

  London Underground (Service Levels)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) of 25 February,Official Report,column 160, concerning London Underground, if he will make it a duty of the regulator to ensure that existing minimum levels and quality of service are maintained within the fare structure set out in his statement. [18350]

  Mr. Bowis
  The White Paper we plan to publish this summer will set out our detailed proposals, including the regulatory arrangements which will underpin these requirements.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the promised contribution of £300 million towards the cost of the Jubilee line extension has been paid so far by the Canary wharf developers. [18130]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Canary Wharf developers have agreed to contribute £400 million towards the cost of the Jubilee line extension. To date, London Transport has received £100 million. The balance of £300 million will be paid over a 24-year period starting immediately after the first day of operation of the Jubilee line extension.

  Salisbury Bypass
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the terms of reference set by him and by the Secretary of State for the Environment when they sought advice last autumn from the Countryside Commission on the proposed crossing of the River Avon by the Salisbury bypass. [18011]
  505
  Mr. Watts
  The terms of reference of the review of certain aspects of the proposed A36 Salisbury bypass are set out in paragraphs 51 to 53 of the letter of 22 October 1996 issued on behalf of my right hon. Friends. Specifically, the Secretaries of State instructed the Highways Agency to consult the Countryside Commission on the aspect of the review that was concerned with possible further measures to reduce the overall landscape impact of the bypass in the region of the newly notified East Harnham meadows site of special scientific interest.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Juvenile Courts (Cullompton)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the capacity of Cullompton, Devon, juvenile courts to meet their work load. [16732]

  Mr. Streeter
  I understand that Her Majesty's magistrates courts service inspectorate is today beginning an inspection of the Devon magistrates courts committee area. We have no reason to doubt the capacity of the Cullompton juvenile court to meet its work load.

  Legal Costs (Convicted Criminals)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on making convicted criminals contribute to the cost of their court hearing and legal aid bills. [16733]

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on making convicted criminals contribute to the cost of their court hearing and legal aid bills. [16726]

  Mr. Streeter
  I have received no representations on making convicted criminals contribute to the cost of their court hearing and legal aid bills. However, where their means require it, defendants in criminal cases already make a contribution towards their legal costs.

  Legal Aid Budget
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the growth in the legal aid budget since 1980. [16735]

  Mr. Streeter
  The principal factor underlying the growth in legal aid expenditure since 1980 has been the increase in the number of people helped. During the period, the number of acts of assistance increased by 219 per cent., from 1 million in 1980–81 to 3.5 million in 1995–96. Higher unit costs have also contributed significantly to growth, where average payments have consistently grown at a rate well above that of inflation.

  National Marriage Week
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what results he expects from the institution of National Marriage Week; and what contribution has been made by his Department to its objectives. [16737]
  506
  Mr. Streeter
  National Marriage Week was organised independently by the Christian charity Marriage Resource. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was pleased to accept an invitation from Marriage Resource to speak at an event during National Marriage Week. He called on all those who believe in the institution of marriage to work to promote a positive and realistic vision of marriage. I and my colleagues in the Government are committed to doing all we can to support marriage.

  Civil Justice (Access)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve access to civil justice; and if he will make a statement. [16738]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Government have embarked on a wide-ranging set of reforms of the civil justice system, following Lord Woolf s final report "Access to Justice". October 1998 has been set as the target date for the implementation of the major planks of the reforms, which are designed to make civil litigation quicker, cheaper and simpler.

  Limitation Legislation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects a full review of limitation legislation to be completed. [16739]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Law Commission has undertaken a comprehensive review of the law of limitation periods with a view to its simplification and rationalisation. The first stage will be completed when the Law Commission publishes a consultation paper, which it hopes to do this summer. A period of consultation will follow before the Law Commission makes its final recommendations.

  Advisory Board on Family Law
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Sectetary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the composition of the Advisory Board on Family Law. [18700]

  Mr. Streeter
  On 10 December 1966, in response to a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence),Official Report column 96,I set out the Lord Chancellor's plans for the Advisory Board on Family Law which will provide independent advice on the implementation and operation of the Family Law Act 1966.

  The Lord Chancellor has now appointed Sir Thomas Boyd-Carpenter to be the chairman of the Advisory Board on Family Law and the following people to be members of the board:

  The Honourable Mr. Justice Wall

  Naomi Angell

  Dr. Carole Kaplan

  Dr. Janet Lewis

  Suzan Matthews QC

  Professor Phyllida Parsloe

  Professor Simon Roberts

  Jane Simpson

  David Skidmore

  Colin Webb

  Anthony Wells

  507
  All appointments are for a period of five years commencing on 1 April 1997 and ending on 31 March 2002. The board's first meeting will take place on 14 April 1997.

  Legal Aid Centres
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Sectetary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much grant is allocated in 1996–97 to how many legal aid centres; in which main locations; and if he will make a statement. [17099]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Department provides the Legal Aid Board with funds from which annual grants are made to nine law centres, in London, Birmingham, Leeds, Cardiff and Middlesex. In 1996–97 the board has paid £900,564 in annual grants to the law centres.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersens, (c) BMI, (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992 and the broad function to be carried out by the contractors and the value of the contract in each case. [17605]

  Mr. Streeter
  The information is as follows:

  Consultants

  Number of contracts

  Nature

  Value (excluding VAT)

  EDS

  1

  A seven-year contract was awarded on 8 October 1996 under the private finance initiative.

  In region of £20–£25 million

  Under the contract, the local county court system (LOCCS) will computerise much of the routine work of the county courts. The first module of the new system, Caseman, will enable court documents to be issued automatically and replace the system of manual record keeping for every case, making access to case details easier. Five existing information technology systems including CREST (which supports Crown court centres) SPC and CCBC (which support centralised functions for Northampton County Court) were transferred to EDS

  Andersens

  0

  BMI

  0

  Capita

  5

  (a) Recruitment services

  (a) £32,149

  (b) Recruitment services

  (b) £23,262

  (c) Recruitment services

  (c) £850

  (d) Recruitment services

  (d) £2,550

  (e) Recruitment services

  (e)£113

  Sema

  0

  Finished consultant episodes—ordinary admissions and day cases

  Pneumonia

  Influenza

  Bronchitis

  Hypothermia

  Total

  December 1989

  591

  117

  184

  5

  897

  January 1990

  324

  30

  98

  6

  458

  December 1990

  346

  26

  114

  12

  498

  January 1991

  322

  24

  127

  8

  481

  December 1991

  294

  25

  90

  9

  418

  January 1992

  292

  20

  101

  2

  415

  December 1992

  210

  3

  65

  8

  286

  January 1993

  226

  5

  65

  4

  300

  December 1993

  301

  24

  58

  13

  396

  508

  Court Waiting Times
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his reply of 14 February,Official Report,column 354,what was the number of defendants (a) on bail and (b) in custody, who waited (i) less than eight weeks and (ii) less than 16 weeks before being dealt with. [17622]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Jack Straw, dated 3 March 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the waiting times for defendants on bail and in custody committed for trial to the Crown Court in 1996.

  0–8 weeks

  0–16 weeks

  Bail

  16,409

  21,120

  Custody

  29,728

  45,019

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cold-related Illnesses
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what have been the excess winter treatment rates for cold-related illnesses in hospitals in Northern Ireland for(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients for each of the last 10 years; [17214]

  (2) how many people in Northern Ireland received treatment by NHS doctors for cold-related illnesses for the period December 1996 and January 1997; and what was the average figure for similar periods in the past 10 years. [17221]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland received hospital treatment as(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients for cold-related illnesses for the period December 1996 and January 1997; and what was the average figure for similar periods in the past 10 years. [17218]

  Mr. Moss
  The information available for in-patients is shown in the table and covers the period 1989–90 to 1995–96. For the purposes of the question, "cold-related illnesses" have been defined as pneumonia, influenza, bronchitis and hypothermia.
  509

  Finished consultant episodes—ordinary admissions and day cases

  Pneumonia

  Influenza

  Bronchitis

  Hypothermia

  Total

  January 1994

  330

  7

  56

  11

  404

  December 1994

  252

  9

  76

  11

  348

  January 1995

  291

  7

  70

  5

  373

  December 1995

  345

  68

  83

  18

  514

  January 1996

  371

  38

  70

  6

  485

  1Source:

  Hospital Inpatients Systems"

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and

  (A) Items stolen

  (B) Items unaccounted for

  Items valued at over £5,000

  IT equipment (including in previous figures)

  Number

  Cost (£)

  Number

  Cost (£)

  Stolen

  Unaccounted

  83

  86,868

  138

  9,362

  One Sokkisha survey instrument—£7,145 (stolen from Roads Service Agency store)

  Six items totalling £9,242

  Six items totalling £2,296

  One mobile chlorination unit—£6,395 (stolen from Water Service Agency—locked site)

  One Sokkisha station set—£7,012 (stolen from Roads Service Agency)

  One Ford Sierra car—£7,805 (stolen from Environment and Heritage Service Agency)

  One Lorry—£10,443 (stolen from Roads Service Agency locked depot)

  Figures do not include DOE items valued at less than £500 as their inclusion would incur disproportionate costs.

  All items valued at over £5,000 were the property of DOE.

  Social Deprivation Funds
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when advice or instructions will be issued by the Department of Education (Northern Ireland) to schools in respect of approved uses of the funds allocated under the social deprivation factor. [17672]

  Mr. Ancram
  Under the local management of schools formula arrangements, it is a matter for the schools to decide and prioritise how they spend their budgets, including their targeting social need allocations. The Department does not specify how any individual elements of school budgets should be spent, but the provision made by any school is always subject to general inspection.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will investigate as a matter of urgency the effect of the social deprivation factor on the balance of funding between controlled and maintained primary schools of approximately the same enrolment, with particular reference to schools with enrolments in excess of 150 pupils. [17667]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department's targeting social need policy focuses on the targeting of additional resources to schools in terms of social and educational disadvantage, regardless of whether those schools are controlled or maintained. Just over 60 per cent. of such funding
  510
  its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17063]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested in respect of the Northern Ireland Departments and their agencies is as follows for the period 1 January 1996 to 31 January 1997:

  allocated under the local management of schools arrangements goes to Catholic maintained schools, and that is a reflection of the additional need in these schools. However targeting social need allocations represent only a small part of the overall school budget and, when all other factors are taken in account, the total per capita allocations to controlled and maintained schools are very similar.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is(a) the total allocation in 1996–97 for the five education and library boards in Northern Ireland in respect of the social deprivation factor in their budgets and (b) the amount distributed directly to schools by the Department of Education (Northern Ireland) using a free school meals factor. [17665]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of £35,726,893 was allocated to schools by the education and library boards in 1996–97 in respect of targeting social needs.

  The Department allocated a total of £1,496,868 to voluntary grammar schools and £563,847 to grant maintained integrated schools in the same year.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has obtained of low educational achievement in respect of each grammar school in receipt of funding determined by reference to social deprivation. [17670]

  Mr. Ancram
  None. Only 4 per cent. of the targeting social need funds is allocated to grammar schools reflecting the low incidence of social deprivation as
  511
  measured by the number of pupils entitled to free school meals. All such pupils are eligible for additional support regardless of which schools they attend.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the social deprivation factor was first applied to school budgets in Northern Ireland; what steps have been taken to monitor this allocation and assess its cost-effectiveness; and when he will publish the results of the monitoring procedures. [17666]

  Mr. Ancram
  Targeting social need funding for schools has been an integral part of local management of schools funding arrangements since their introduction in 1991. Under the LMS formula arrangements it is for schools to prioritise how they spend their budgets, including their targeting social need allocations. Schools are responsible to parents for the way in which they spend their resources and provision made for low achieving pupils is also an integral part of the published inspection reports of schools. A recent research project undertaken by the University of Ulster showed that schools are aware of targeting social need allocations and make every effort to use the funds effectively.

  Council For Catholic Maintained Schools
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment his Department makes of the level of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools expenditure per pupil relative to that in the maintained sector. [17669]

  Mr. Ancram
  None. The level of expenditure incurred by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools is based on an assessment of the resources required to meet its statutory responsibilities.

  Traffic Reduction Powers
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to provide the powers granted to local authorities in the Road Traffic Reduction Bill to district councils in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [17700]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service and its chief executive, Mr. W. J. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. P. Fraser to Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your recently tabled PQ about the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. In his absence I will reply on his behalf.
  The Road Traffic Reduction Bill, as presently drafted, applies only to local authorities which are highway authorities. The Department of the Environment is the sole road authority in Northern Ireland and, if the Bill is enacted, similar requirements can be placed on the Department, including that of consultation or liaison with district councils, by means of a policy direction.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Sectarian Harassment
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if a Northern Ireland Office Minister was involved in directing the transfer of a member of the Minister of Agriculture's private office who was 512
  subsequently found by the Fair Employment Commission to have been the victim of sectarian harassment within that private office. [17800]

  Mr. Ancram
  The matter is of some complexity and my noble Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Departmental Policies (Bournemouth)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effect of his Department's policies on the residents of Bournemouth since 1992, with special reference to the effects of changes in the resources provided in real terms. [14947]

  Mr. Boswell
  The residents of Bournemouth alongside those living elsewhere have benefited from MAFF policies which have led to rising farm incomes, greater protection for the interests of farmers and consumers and new measures to safeguard food and public health, while local grant-aided expenditure on flood and coastal defence amounts to more than £1.5 million over the past five years.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department estimates it cost to establish each executive agency set up by his Department since the start of April 1992. 116964]

  Mr. Boswell
  Since April 1992, the following executive agencies have been launched by MAFF:

  Date

  (a) ADAS1

  1 April 1992

  (b) Central Science Laboratory (CSL)

  1 April 1992

  (c) Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD)

  1 April 1993

  (d) Meat Hygiene Service (MHS)

  1 April 1995

  (e) Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA)

  1 October 1995

  1 Preferred bidder for privatisation announced on 19 February 1997.

  An analysis of the costs of establishing these agencies is not available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersens, (c) BMI, (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992 and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor and the value of the contract in each case. [17604]

  Mr. Boswell
  Since 1992 the Department has held no contracts with EDS, Andersens or BMI. Prior to September 1993 there were no contracts with Capita. There were orders placed with Sema before that date; details of these orders are not available, but were fairly insignificant compared with later years.

  In September 1993 framework agreements were signed with both Capita and Sema. These agreements have no fixed value. There has been one order placed with Capita;

  513
  this concerned assistance with the information technology directorate's market testing programme. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, I am unable to reveal the cost of this work. Under the Sema agreement there have been numerous orders having total value of £4,989,000. All concerned project management, systems analysis and programme resources in relation to the development of IT applications software.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the possible health risk to(a) consumers and (b) animals of the use of bovine somatotropin in (i) milk and (ii) other products; and if he will make a statement. [17845]

  Mrs. Browning
  No veterinary medicine is authorised for use unless it meets stringent statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. Safety includes the safety of the consumer of any food produced from the treated animal, and the health and welfare of the treated animal. As part of this process the applicant company is required to submit data to the veterinary medicines directorate, where they are carefully assessed by specialists qualified in various scientific disciplines including biology, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, toxicology and ecotoxicology.

  Applications for the authorisation of bovine somatotropin have been very carefully assessed by various independent expert committees in Britain and Europe. They have concluded that BST poses no hazard to public safety or to animal health or welfare.

  Nevertheless there is a moratorium on marketing and use of the product in the European Union until 31 December 1999 to allow limited field tests in order to obtain any other scientific data that might be taken into account by the Council of Ministers when taking a final decision to the authorisation of BST. No application for such tests has been made in the UK.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations his Department has issued on the use of bovine somatotropin for (i) milk and (ii) other products; and if he will make a statement. [17846]

  Mrs. Browning
  None. There is an EU moratorium on the use of BST until the end of 1999. If the Council of Ministers authorises the use of BST when the moratorium expires, no veterinary medicinal product containing BST will be permitted for use in the UK except in accordance with a marketing authorisation issued under the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994. Its use would also be restricted to veterinary prescription.

  Genetically Modified Maize
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the recent actions of the Governments of Luxembourg and France in determining his policy in respect of the importation of genetically modified maize. [17847]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 24 February 1997,Official Report,column 79.
  514

  Rabies
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) of 18 February,Official Report,column 513,if the revised protocol relating to rabies antibody tests will provide for mutual acceptance of test results from approved laboratories in participating countries. [18131]

  Mrs. Browning
  This would be the intention of the revised protocol.

HEALTH

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who have had eye tests in each year since 1987. [17683]

  Mr. Malone
  No information is held on the number of individual patients who receive sight tests. The estimated number of national health service and private sight tests is shown in the table. Because the information on private sight tests is from a sample survey of activity across Great Britain, the figures are for Great Britain only.

  Millions

  Year

  NHS sight tests

  Private sight tests

  Total

  1986–87

  12.2

  1—

  —

  1987–88

  13.5

  1—

  —

  1988–89

  14.4

  1—

  —

  1989–90

  6.4

  1—

  —

  1990–91

  4.8

  1—

  —

  1991–92

  5.7

  1—

  —

  1992–93

  6.4

  1—

  —

  1993–94

  6.6

  6.6

  13.2

  1994–95

  7.4

  6.5

  13.9

  1995–96

  7.6

  7.0

  14.6

  1 Information on the number of private sight tests carried out before 1992–93 is not available.

  Consultant Vacancies
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there were for consultants by specialty in each year since 1990. [17862]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on consultant vacancies by specialty for 1990 to 1994 is shown in the table. For information for 1995, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 4 February 1997,Official Report,columns 595–96.Information for 1996 is not yet available.

  Data on vacant posts are difficult to interpret and do not necessarily imply a shortage. The census is a snapshot on 30 September each year. Some vacancies will be wholly or partly filled by locums. For others, national health service trusts may find other ways to provide the service than re-advertising. The numbers give no indication of how long the post has been empty. Some of these would have been in the process of being filled.
  515

  Vacant consultant posts by specialty in England as at 30 September 1990 to 1994 (whole time equivalent rounded to the nearest ten)

  Specialty

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Accident and emergency

  20

  10

  20

  20

  10

  Anaesthetics

  90

  50

  90

  80

  100

  Audiological medicine

  —

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Blood transfusion

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  Cardio-thoracic surgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  Cardiology

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  Chemical pathology

  10

  10

  0

  0

  —

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  30

  20

  30

  20

  30

  Clinical physiology

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Clinical cytogenetics

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Clinical immunology and allergy

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Clinical neurological physiology

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Clinical genetics

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Dermatology

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  Endocrinology

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Forensic psychiatry

  0

  0

  10

  10

  10

  Gastroenterology

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  General pathology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General surgery

  30

  20

  20

  20

  20

  General medicine

  20

  10

  10

  20

  10

  Genito-urinary medicine

  10

  10

  10

  10

  0

  Geriatric medicine

  10

  0

  10

  10

  20

  Haematology

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Histopathology

  20

  10

  10

  0

  10

  Immuno-pathology

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Infectious diseases

  0

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Medical microbiology

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Medical oncology

  —

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Metal handicap

  30

  20

  10

  0

  10

  Mental illness

  130

  80

  90

  80

  100

  Nephrology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neurology

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neuropathology

  —

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Neurosurgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nuclear medicine

  —

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Occupational health

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Old age psychiatry

  20

  20

  20

  10

  20

  Opthalmology

  30

  20

  10

  20

  30

  Otolaryngology

  20

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Paediatric neurology

  —

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Paediatric surgery

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Paediatrics

  30

  30

  50

  40

  20

  Palliative medicine

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Plastic surgery

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Psychotherapy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Radiology

  30

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Radiotherapy

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Rehabilitation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rheumatology

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Thoracic medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Traumatic and orthopaedic surgery

  30

  20

  30

  30

  30

  Urology

  10

  20

  10

  10

  10

  Virology

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Other

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Total of all specialties

  700

  470

  540

  480

  570

  Source:

  The medical and dental workforce census 30 September 1990 to 1994.

  Notes:

  1. Figures shown are for England as at 30 September of each year.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  3. 0 = 5 or less; — = zero.
  516 517

  Blood (CJD)
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued regarding the acceptability of blood donations from the relatives of persons suffering or who have died from the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [17809]

  Mr. Horam
  The National Blood Service guidelines exclude from giving blood relatives of people who are suffering from, or who have died from, any form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests are available to demonstrate that blood does not contain the agent of the new variant CJD. [18022]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no test available to detect Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, including the new variant, in the blood of living persons.

  The safety of blood is kept under regular review by the expert advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation. There is no evidence of any risk of transmission of CJD through blood or blood products. However, as a precautionary measure, the National Blood Service guidelines exclude from giving blood people who, as a result of personal health factors or treatment received, might be at risk of developing CJD, and people with a family history of CJD.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines indicating(a) the organisations that they represent, (b) the organisations nominating them to sit on the committee, (c) other voluntary and paid employment that they undertake and (d) other areas of expertise that they have: and if he will make a statement. [17848]

  Mr. Malone
  Following is the membership of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, members' qualifications and expertise and their primary place of employment:

  Professor M. D. Rawlins BSc MD FRCP(Lon) FRCP(Ed) FFPM: Chairman

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, Newcastle University;

  Professor T. R. E. Barnes MD FRCPsych

  Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, London University;

  Professor A. M. Breckenridge CBE MD MSc FRCP FRCPE FRSE: Vice Chairman

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, Liverpool University;

  Dr. K. L. Costeloe MB BChir FRCP

  Head of Academic Department of Child Health and Reader in Neonatal Medicine, St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry;

  Professor J. H. Darbyshire OBE MSc MB ChB FRCP

  Head of the MRC's HIV Clinical Trials Centre, University College London Medical School;

  Professor H. J. Dargie FRCP FESC

  Consultant Cardiologist and Co-Director of CRI in Heart Failure, Glasgow University;

  Professor D. S. Davies BSc PhD CChem FRSC

  Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, London;

  Dr. A. M. Douglas BSc MB ChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG

  General Practitioner, Exeter;

  518

  Professor G. W. Duff MA BM BCh PhD FRCP

  Professor of Molecular Medicine. Sheffield University;

  Dr. S. J. Eykyn FRCP FRCPath

  Reader (Hon Con) in Clinical Microbiology, St. Thomas' Hospital, London;

  Professor R. G. Finch FRCP FRCPath FFPM

  Professor of Infectious Diseases, Nottinghan University;

  Professor A. T. Florence CBE DSc FRSC FRSE FRPharmS

  Dean of the School of Pharmacy, London University;

  Professor E. C. Gordon-Smith FRCP FRCPath

  Professor of Haematology, St. George's Hospital Medical School. London;

  Professor K. Gull BSc PhD

  Director of the Research and Graduate School, School of Biological Sciences, Manchester University;

  Professor H. S. Jacobs MD FRCP FRCOG

  Professor of Reproductive Endocrinology, University College and Middlesex School of Medicine, London;

  Mrs. E. A. Kay MSc MRPharmS MCPP DMS

  Director of Clinical Pharmacy, United Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust;

  Dr. M. J. Kendall MD FRCP

  Reader in Medicine, Birmingham University; Dr. B. J. Kirby MD MB ChB FRCP

  Consultant Physician and Deputy Director Postgraduate Medical School, Exeter University;

  Dr. S. Kumar MBBS MRCGP DCH DPMC

  Principal in General Practice, Widnes, Cheshire and Member of the Department of Health's Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs;

  Professor M. J. S. Langman BSc MD FRCP

  Professor of Medicine and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Birmingham University;

  Dr. A. V. P. MacKay OBE MA BSc PhD MB ChB FRCPsych FRCP

  Medical Director of the Argyll and Bute NHS Trust and McIntosh Lecturer in Psychological Medicine, Glasgow University;

  Professor J. M. Midgley BSc MSc PhD CChem FRSC FRPharmS;

  Professor of Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry, Strathclyde University;

  Professor B. K. Park BSc Phd MRCP

  Professor of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Liverpool University;

  Professor B. L. Pentecost MD FRCP

  Consultant Physician and Director of British Heart Foundation;

  Professor J. C. Petrie FRCP(Ed) FRCP(Lon) FFPM

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, Aberdeen University;

  Professor L. L. Smith PhD FRCPath

  Director of the MRC Toxicology Unit, Leicester University;

  Dr. K. Vernier Jones MD FRCP

  Senior Lecturer in Paediatric Nephrology, Cardiff Royal Infirmary;

  Professor M. P. Vessey CBE MD FRCP FFPHM FRS

  Professor of Public Health, Oxford University;

  Professor I. V. D. Weller MD FRCP

  Head of Department of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (a division of Pathology and Infectious Diseases), University College London Medical School.

  519
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines is an independent body of drug safety experts. Its members are appointed by the United Kingdom Health Ministers—the licensing authority—following consultations with appropriate organisations and on the recommendations of the Medicines Commission. The organisations consulted include professional associations such as the royal colleges, the pharmaceutical industry, and organisations concerned with the interests of consumers, women and ethnic minorities. Members do not represent organisations, but contribute by their individual expertise and judgment to the advice given by the committee to the licensing authority. In addition, members are required to follow a code of practice on relations with the pharmaceutical industry and to declare their interests which are published annually.

  Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals Trust
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when, and by whom, approval was given to the placement of newspaper advertisements inviting applications for the chairmanship and non-executive membership of the proposed Pinderfields and Pontefract hospitals trust. [18021]

  Mr. Horam
  The advertisement was placed by the national health service executive following the decision to establish the new trust.

  Cancelled Operations
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of cancelled operations by district health authority for the quarter ending 31 December 1996. [18281]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested will be placed in the Library shortly.

  NHS Facilities (Repair and Maintenance Backlog)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outstanding repair and maintenance backlog on NHS facilities by region at the end of December 1996. [18282]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 19 November 1996,Official Report,columns 529–30.That is the latest information available.

  NHS Finances
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the predicted out-turn position at the end of the third quarter for the financial year 1996–97 for(a) each NHS trust and (b) each health authority. [18283]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Milk Tokens and Vitamin Supplements
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many mothers and expectant mothers under 25 years who receive contributions-based jobseeker's allowance are not entitled to milk tokens and vitamin supplements by region and nationally. [18285]
  520
  (2) if he will give mothers and expectant mothers under 25 years who receive contributions-based jobseeker's allowance an entitlement to milk tokens and vitamin supplements. [18286]

  Mr. Horam
  Under the welfare food scheme, milk tokens and vitamin supplements are provided to mothers and expectant mothers who are in receipt of an income-based jobseeker's allowance. We have no plans to extend the entitlement to women receiving a contribution-based jobseeker' s allowance.

  Congenital Rubella Syndrome
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were born in 1996 with congenital rubella syndrome; and what procedures are in place to train general practitioners to communicate diagnoses to the parents and refer such cases to specialist support services. [18287]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest year for which centrally collected figures are available is 1994–95, when there were 12 finished consultant episodes in which the primary diagnosis was congenital rubella. Communicating an adverse diagnosis to the parents of sick and disabled children is an extremely challenging task and forms an important part of general practitioners' training. Further guidance is also available to health service staff. The document "Child Health in the Community: A Guide to Good Practice", issued last September by the national health service executive—copies of which are available in the Library—includes a section on the principles involved in breaking bad news and accessing specialist support services, and advice on the training and support needs of staff undertaking this duty.

  Accident and Emergency Services (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the report of the Greater London Association of Community Health Councils on the accident and emergency services in London; and if he will make a statement on its recommendations. [18289]

  Mr. Malone
  We have noted the report.

  Work has been undertaken by health authorities and trusts to ensure that the service is able to cope with peaks of activity. Every health authority produced an action plan with its trusts in advance of this winter and these arrangements have, in general, worked well. We have made £20 million extra funds available during the current financial year to meet particular pressures, out of which around £4 million is going to health authorities in London.

  Broadmoor Hospital
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the High Security Psychiatric Commissioning Board last made an(a) planned and (b) unplanned visit to Broadmoor. [17820]

  Mr. Burns
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: Since its inception on 1 April 1996, the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board has made numerous visits to Broadmoor. The last visit was on 7 February 1997. The HSPSCB will be making unannounced visits to each of the three high security hospitals, including Broadmoor, from 1 April 1997.
  521
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about staffing levels and security matters at Broadmoor and when; and if he will make a statement. [17821]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: I received a letter from Mr. Andy Gossage of the Prison Officers Association on 19 February, which raised various concerns about Broadmoor hospital. In the light of these and other concerns, I' have asked the regional director of Anglia and Oxford regional office of the NHS executive to consider the adequacy and appropriateness of security arrangements, and the overall quality of patient care, at Broadmoor hospital, and to report to me with recommendations by the end of March.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the allegations of an assault by a patient on a seven-year-old girl visiting Broadmoor; and what actions his Department has undertaken in respect of the allegation. [17822]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: I understand that these allegations, dating from April 1995, were investigated at that time by both the hospital management and the local police and no evidence was found to warrant further action. The review to be carried out by the Anglia and Oxford regional office of the NHS executive will include in its consideration the arrangements within Broadmoor hospital for handling this and similar allegations.

  Special Hospitals
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the current arrangements for monitoring the special hospitals. [17823]

  Mr. Burns
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: The current arrangements for monitoring the three high security hospitals are set out in an NHS executive document, "High Secure Psychiatric Services: Changes in Funding and Organisation", which was published in June 1995. Monitoring procedures are regularly reviewed. The hospitals are also regularly visited by the Mental Health Act Commission, whose responsibilities are well set out in the Mental Health Act.

SCOTLAND

  Minimum Age Requirements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the minimum age requirements enforced by his Department. [15919]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As the information is lengthy, it has been placed in the Library.

  Locate In Scotland
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been created or safeguarded as a result of action by Locate in Scotland(a) by company, (b) by region and (c) in Scotland, since its establishment; and if he will make a statement. [16542]
  522
  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 18 February 1997]: This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Inward investment projects attracted to Scotland since Locate in Scotland was established in 1981 have, however, involved the planned creation or safeguarding of over 130,000 jobs.

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will intervene to stop the Royal Infirmary trust closing the varicose ulcer clinic at the Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh. [17510]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This leg ulcer clinic within the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh was established as a research project, the funding for which expires shortly. The trust, in consultation with Lothian health board, is reviewing the range of its vascular surgery services to determine whether there is any way in which existing resources can be used more effectively to enable the leg ulcer clinic to continue.

  Prison Construction
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the planned expenditure for constructing prisons in Scotland over the next three years; and what is the design capacity of each planned prison. [17695]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  One new 500-cell prison is planned at Bowhouse, Kilmarnock as part of the private finance initiative. The earliest opening date is 1999, from which time an annual payment would be made by the Scottish Prison Service to the successful contractor for operating the prison, which would include an element to reflect construction costs. Provision to meet the estimated initial costs of the prison is included in the Scottish Prison Service's financial allocation of some £186 million for 1999–2000. Additional prison places required in the light of the early release proposals in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill would also be financed through the PFI. As the new places would not come on stream until after the time period covered by the Government's current public expenditure plans, no financial provision has yet been made.

  Offenders (Release)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary for State for Scotland how many and what percentage of serious offenders were released in Scotland without a supervision order, in each year since 1992. [17694]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available. However, it may be useful to highlight the current legislative requirements in relation to supervision of offenders. Sections 12 and 14 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 set out, with effect from 1 October 1993, new provisions in relation to the supervision of prisoners. Section 12 requires that all long-term prisoners—those sentenced to four years or more—will be supervised on release by a relevant local authority officer. Similarly, section 14 enables the courts to order supervision for those short-term prisoners sentenced to between one and four years who may pose a potential risk to the public on
  523
  release. This power is exercised by imposing a supervised release order. Measures are therefore in place to ensure the supervision of offenders as appropriate.

  The Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, currently before Parliament, contains provisions to extend the availability of the supervised release order. It would provide for mandatory supervision for up to 25 per cent. of sentence for those convicted of the most serious violent offences.

  Prison Population
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Scottish prisoners are currently serving sentences of less than six months; and what percentage of those are female. [17691]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of this question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mrs. Ray Michie, dated 3 March 1997:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the percentage of Scottish prisoners who are currently serving sentences of less than six months; and the percentage of those that are female.
  As at 26 February 1997 13 per cent. (815) of the Scottish prison population were serving sentences of less than six months, 6 per cent. of which (49) were female.

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in Scotland aged under 18 years were charged with a criminal offence in 1996. [17693]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of persons charged with a criminal offence. In 1994, the latest year for which information is available, there were 10,601 occasions when persons aged under 18 were proceeded against for a criminal offence at court and a further 25,735 occasions when persons aged under 18 were referred to the reporter to the children's panels on offence grounds.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of convicted sex offenders in Scotland who would have been registerable if the provisions of the Sex Offenders Bill had been in force at the time of their conviction. [17799]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No estimate has been made as this is not relevant for the purposes of the Bill.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of food poisoning have been reported in Scotland to date in 1997. [17659]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: By the week ending 15 February 1997, there had been 902 notifications of food poisoning to the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service.
  524
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of reported cases of salmonellosis in Scotland in each year since 1979; and what is the latest available figure for 1997. [17660]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]:The following table shows total numbers of Salmonella infections—human laboratory isolates—reported to the Scottish centre for infection and environmental health over the period requested.

  Year

  Total

  1979

  1,483

  1980

  1,577

  1981

  2,526

  1982

  2,621

  1983

  2,288

  1984

  2,221

  1985

  1,690

  1986

  2,015

  1987

  2,286

  1988

  2,580

  1989

  2,578

  1990

  2,442

  1991

  2,330

  1992

  2,992

  1993

  2,919

  1994

  2,969

  1995

  3,106

  1996

  3,266

  1997

  1313

  1 To 21 February 1997.

  Farmed Salmon
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many salmon farms in Scotland are permitted to use ivermectin to control sea lice. [17829]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: I understand from the Scottish Environment Protection agency that discharge consents have been granted to 15 Scottish salmon farms in respect of ivermectin which will be used to control sea lice. Twenty-four applications for discharge consent have been refused by the agency.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the letter of the Lord Advocate of 14 February to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who assessed(a) the current role of Mr. James Thurman and (b) his former role in respect of the Lockerbie case. [17291]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Issues as to Mr. Thurman's current role are for the relevant United States authorities, but Mr. Thurman's role in respect of the Lockerbie case was considered by the then Lord Advocate, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, in September 1995. He advised the hon. Member in October 1995 that proof of the case does not depend on evidence which Mr. Thurman might give.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant, to the letter of the Lord Advocate of 14 February, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he has assessed a draft of the US inspector general's report into laboratory practices and alleged misconduct in explosives-related and other cases. [17292]
  525
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Lord Advocate has not seen a draft of the US inspector general's report into laboratory practices and alleged misconduct in explosives-related and other cases.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioner Incomes
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide an updated analysis for each quintile of pensioners' income for single pensioners, pensioner couples and all pensioner units on the same basis as that given on 12 March 1996,Official Report,columns 595–98. [14302]

  Mr. Heald
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Reason/Benefit

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Men

  Child benefit

  30

  36

  40

  49

  57

  Income support

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attendance allowance

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  31

  36

  40

  49

  57

  Women

  Child benefit

  2,619

  2,688

  2,709

  2,719

  2,700

  Income support

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Attendance allowance

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Total

  2,621

  2,690

  2,710

  2,720

  2,700

  Source:

  1 per cent. sample of national insurance records at February 1996—DSS Home Responsibilities Protection Statistics 1994–95.

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to Great Britain and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. It is not possible to determine how many of the years will be used in the final pension calculation until the individual claims retirement pension.

  Claimants (Exempt Work)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of invalidity benefit were undertaking therapeutic work during the year 1994–95; how many claimants of incapacity benefit have undertaken exempt work since its introduction in 1995; and what is his estimate of(a) the annual cost and (b) the numbers affected if the therapeutic work rules were reintroduced into incapacity benefit. [16098]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Retirement Incomes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the average wealth and income, other than the basic state retirement pension, of people retiring at the present time and at convenient intervals in the past 30 years. [15844]

  Mr. Heald
  The latest available information is contained in "The Pensioners' Incomes Series 1994–95". This shows that recently retired pensioner units1 have a mean average gross income of £235.60 per week, 58 per cent. of which is from a source other than state benefits2. The earliest data available form the Pensioners' Income
  526

  Home Responsibilities Protection
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women qualified for home responsibilities protection during each of the past five years, by reason for protection; and what is his estimate of the annual cost of making each year of home responsibilities protection equivalent to a year in which full national insurance credits have been awarded. [15797]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  The Government Actuary's Department has estimated that replacing the home responsibilities protection arrangements with full national insurance credits would cost £150 million in the year 2030.

  Series is 1974 (23 November 1994, Official Report,columns 171–76).Information for intervening years has been published in the annual "Social Security Statistics" since 1993. Further details about pensioner households are given in the annual "Households Below Average Income" statistics.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Notes:
  1A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age or a couple where the man, defined as the head, is over SPA. A recently retired pensioner unit is defined as a pensioner unit where the head of the benefit unit is less than five years older than SPA.

  2Source:The Pensioners' Income Series 1994–95.

  1. Figures quoted are at July 1994 prices.

  Benefit Claimants (Earnings)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the levels of gross earnings at which(a) single people, (b) lone parents, (c) couples without children and (d) couples with children face marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent. for (e) 1996–97 and (f) 1997–98; and what are the numbers affected in each group. [16301]
  527
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The gross earnings at which different family types face marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent. depends on the individual characteristics of the claim.

  Information on the marginal deduction rates faced by certain family types across a range of gross earnings is available in the April 1996 tax benefit model tables, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Hazardous Materials (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department has made of the presence of(a) hazardous materials and (b) ozone-depleting substances within those buildings his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16315]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Assessments have been completed on hazardous materials in buildings we occupy under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 and risks identified have been recorded as required by the legislation.

  Arrangements for storage and disposal of hazardous waste conform to the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  An assessment has been made of ozone-depleting substances and a target date set for replacement.

  The policy of this Department is to minimise the use of substances which are hazardous to human health or to the environment and to eliminate the use of all ozone-depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons and halons.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people under the age of 25 years have had their housing benefit reduced to single room rent levels; what savings in public expenditure have so far been made as a result of this policy; and what evaluation has been undertaken by his Department of the impact of the policy on the finances and housing situation of young people. [16302]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not yet available.

  However, the introduction of the single room rent restriction is being monitored. Information on the operation of the changes, based on data supplied by a sample of local authorities, will be available in late summer.

  The Department is putting into place a series of research projects for evaluation of the long term effects of the changes. Results are expected next year.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of housing benefit fraud detected by local authorities during 1995–96; how many claimants were involved; what was the average amount of overpaid benefit per claimant; and how many prosecutions were instigated in that year. [16665]
  528
  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The amount of housing benefit fraud detected by local authorities in 1995–96 was £186 million1.

  There were 114,300 overpayments, totalling £43 million, which were attributable to fraud2.

  Figures on the number of prosecutions instigated are currently being processed and will be available in early March.

  Notes:
  1Based on the weekly benefit savings method of accounting. No central records are kept of the number of claimants involved in detected housing benefit fraud.
  2 The number of overpayments does not reflect the number of claimants involved in each fraud, so it is not possible to give an average amount per claimant.

  Source:

  Local authority 1995–96 subsidy claims.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients there currently are of housing benefit in(a) north Devon and (b) Devon; and how many of these are under 25 years of age. [15003]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  In May 1996, there were 6,100 housing benefit recipients in the North Devon district council area and 78,200 in the whole of Devon.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates of the numbers of recipients aged under 25 are not available below regional level.

  2. Recipients may be a single person or a couple.

  Mr. Austin Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of housing benefit subsidy paid to local authorities in England in respect of rent allowances in each of the years from 1991–92 to 1996–97; what is his estimate for 1997–98; and what is his estimate of the housing benefit subsidy that would have been paid in each of those years if local authorities had continued to receive 97 per cent. subsidy. [15163]

  Mr. Evans
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: The information is in the table.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 30 January, Official Report,column 362.

  The reduction from 97 per cent. to 95 per cent. in the rate of direct subsidy which local authorities receive for the majority of their private sector housing benefit expenditure was made with effect from 1 April 1991 on a cost neutral basis. Local authorities were compensated for the reduction in direct subsidy by an appropriate addition to the revenue support grant.

  Allowance expenditure

  Year

  Subsidy paid (£ million)

  1991–92

  1,926

  1992–93

  2,630

  1993–94

  3,444

  1994–95

  4,217

  1995–96

  14,511

  529

  Allowance expenditure

  Year

  Subsidy paid (£ million)

  1996–97

  14,645

  1997–98

  15,065

  Notes:

  1Figures are estimated.

  Sources:

  1991–92 to 1994–95—DSS appropriation accounts.

  1995–96 to 1997–98—based on figures contained in table 1 of the social security departmental report, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99".

  Child Care Disregard
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report columns 254–5,if he will indicate how many claimants would gain from extending the child care disregard to those on family credit subject to a 70 per cent. and 50 per cent. taper. [16668]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is as follows:

  Numbers gaining from extending the childcare disregard to those on family credit subject to a 70 per cent. and 50 per cent. taper 1996 prices

  Number of gainers

  70 per cent. taper

  12,000

  50 per cent. taper

  12,000

  1. Figures are based on the May 1996 family credit statistics, and use actual child care recipients at that time.

  2. Estimates do not include behavioural effects.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of(a) the cost and (b) the numbers gaining if the child care disregard with (i) family credit and (ii) disability working allowance applied to each child under age 11 years. [16671]

  Mr. Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 24 January,Official Report,column 772.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report column 245,what progress has been made in changes to benefit delivery in Yorkshire, the west country and east London and Anglia directorates; when he expects proposals for change to be submitted by the consortiums of private companies; and what elements he expects to be run by the private sector. [16669]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No changes to benefit delivery have been made in the relevant areas.

  The partnerships between three private companies or consortia and the Benefits Agency area directorates are expected to start in early May and last for approximately 12 months.

  The partnership period will give the private companies or consortia the opportunity to work closely with managers and staff, enabling them to understand Benefits Agency business. The private companies or consortia involved in the partnerships will not run the area directorates, or any other part of the agency during the partnership period.
  530
  By the end of the partnership period, the private companies or consortia will be expected to provide proposals on how the agency's business can be delivered more efficiently, effectively and economically, including the possibility of further parts of the operation being run by the private sector. Proposals can be submitted at any time during the partnership period.

  Until the private companies or consortia submit their proposals, it is not possible to determine what changes may be made.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant, to his answer of 17 December,Official Report,column 535,what estimate he has made of the numbers gaining from a maintenance disregard for lone parents of (a) £5 and (b) £10. [16670]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 17 December 1996,Official Report,column 535.Some 240,000 lone parents would gain from the introduction of a maintenance disregard of £5, £.10 or £20 a week.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which benefits people are entitled to when they are refused incapacity benefit but cannot meet the availability for work criteria of the means-tested jobseeker's allowance due to illness or disability. [17878]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Those found capable of work following an all-work test for incapacity benefit, but who have a continuing medical condition or disability, are able to restrict their availability for work and qualify for jobseeker's allowance, provided that the restrictions are reasonable in the light of their physical or mental condition.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits are available to people awaiting an appeal against a Department of Social Security decision to refuse incapacity benefit. [17879]

  Mr. Burt
  Those people awaiting an appeal hearing after failing the all-work test for incapacity benefit may register with the Employment Service and claim jobseeker's allowance. Those who are not seeking work may, provided that they satisfy the entitlement conditions, receive income support.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people refused incapacity benefit and awaiting an appeal decision who have sufficient national insurance contributions qualify for non-means-tested jobseeker's allowance as a matter of right. [17881]

  Mr. Evans
  Those who have paid sufficient national insurance contributions may receive a personal rate of contributions-based jobseeker's allowance for up to six months, provided that they satisfy the labour market conditions.

  Claim Processing Costs
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the unit cost for processing claims for(a) income support, (b) income support for lone parents,

  531
  (c) income support for pensioners, (d) child benefit, (e) family credit, (f) the basic state pension, (g) incapacity benefit and (h) contributory jobseeker's allowance; and (i) means-tested jobseeker's allowance; [18236]

  (2) what is the unit cost for processing claims for (a) income support, (b) income support for lone parents, (c) income support for pensioners, (d) child benefit, (e) family credit, (f) the basic state pension,(g) incapacity benefit, (h) contributory jobseeker's allowance and (i) means-tested jobseeker's allowance in Yorkshire; [18232]

  (3) what is the unit cost for processing claims for (a) income support, (b) income support for lone parents, (c) income support for pensioners, (d) child benefit, (e) family credit, (f) the basic state pension, (g) incapacity benefit,(h)contributory jobseeker's allowance and(i)means-tested jobseeker's allowance in Wales. [18233]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Department publishes figures for the average weekly administration cost per beneficiary, for the main benefits, in its annual departmental report. The report for 1996–97 is due to be published shortly.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the unit cost for handling inquiries by claimants in person in Benefits Agency offices for(a) income support, (b) income support for lone parents, (c) income support for pensioners, (d) child benefit, (e) family credit, (f) the basic state pension, (g) incapacity benefit, (h) contributory jobseeker's allowance and (i) means-tested jobseeker's allowance. [18235]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested.
  532
  The average unit cost, excluding overheads, for dealing with a caller in the Benefits Agency is £1.84.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the unit cost for handling inquiries from claimants by telephone for(a) income support, (b) income support for lone parents, (c) income support for pensioners, (d) child benefit, (e) family credit, (f) the basic state pension, (g) incapacity benefit, (h) contributory jobseeker's allowance and (i) means-tested jobseeker's allowance. [18234]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available.

  Camborne Benefits Agency Office
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reopen Camborne Benefits Agency office in Cornwall; and if he will make a statement. [17937]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison To Mr. David Jamieson, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will reopen Camborne Benefits Agency office in Cornwall.
  I can confirm that the Camborne advice shop, which was temporarily closed on 8 January, will reopen on 3 March 1997.
  The Advice Shop service, which does not have benefit processing or payment facilities, was suspended in order that staff could be redeployed to cover temporary absences and to deal with a greater than predicted take up of Job Seekers Allowance. The number of claims received have now reduced to anticipated levels. More staff will have completed their training which will in turn release staff to their usual duties. This will enable normal service to be resumed at the Advice Shop.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

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

Latin America: London Conference
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to follow up their conference in London, "Link into Latin America".
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, an action plan is being finalised by my department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in consultation with other bodies, including the Confederation of British Industry, Canning House and the Latin American Trade Advisory Group. The Government also wish to continue with the close involvement of Latin American ambassadors in London.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, that is most helpful. I congratulate my noble and learned friend and his colleagues in the Foreign Office on having organised that conference which, although I missed it because I was away due to the change of date, I understand was a huge success. Can my noble and learned friend tell me how many companies that were brand new to the Latin American market attended the conference, in view of the fact that that was the intended target audience and that the conference sought to strike at new companies not previously involved in Latin America?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. We regard the conference as having been a significant success, with no fewer than three Latin American presidents and some 21 Ministers from Latin American countries attending. About 550 people attended the conference, including representatives from nearly 180 British companies. At our best estimate, something like one-third of those were newcomers to the Latin American market. I assure my noble friend that my department intends to make sure that their interest is firmly followed up and that they have every opportunity to take advantage of the markets that are now opening up to them.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord gave a positive response to the noble Viscount's Question and referred to an "action plan". Can he give us some indication of the broad thrust of that plan?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, its broad thrust is, as I indicated, that in co-ordination with the CBI, LATAG and Canning House, we intend to take forward the involvement of those new companies, the
1494
"missing majors". Coupled with that, it is important to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises also understand the opportunities. We certainly want to see further seminars not only in this country but also in Latin America itself.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in terms of the follow-up to which my noble and learned friend referred, I am delighted to hear of the specific targeting of small and medium-sized businesses. Can my noble and learned friend confirm that in encouraging trade missions involving small companies which may be becoming involved in Latin America for the first time, the DTI will continue to support them with the very helpful subvention that it has made in the past?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. As I have said, the key targets for that particular conference were the missing major British companies which have been in Latin America in the past and left or which have never been there. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as part of the follow-up to the conference, we wish to continue to focus on the small and medium-sized enterprises. We recognise that there is an effort to be made in terms of following up the campaign not only by my department but by working with Business Links and other trade associations to ensure that we continue to take forward the successful achievements of that conference.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too join the noble Viscount in congratulating the Minister on that conference. I was not there either, but my reason is different: I was not invited—
Noble Lords: Ah!
Lord Peston: Yes, I thought that noble Lords might like to hear that. However, may I ask, first, whether any proceedings of the conference will be published and, secondly, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whether the action plan to which the Minister referred is in the form of a document which will be available to noble Lords?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, first, I very much regret that the noble Lord was not invited to the conference. However, many Members of Parliament, including Members of the Opposition Benches, were present. I am delighted that they took part not only in the conference but also in a number of other events which followed the major event on the Monday. Yes, there will be a summary report, drawing together the main themes of the opening day of the conference. The action plan that we are to draw up with Canning House, LATAG and the CBI will certainly be available to those noble Lords who wish to see it.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, my noble and learned friend referred to the need for a follow-up with additional conferences in Latin America as well

1495
as here. He will be aware that Canning House has a conference planned in Sao Paulo on 14th May. Does he agree that the effects of ministerial visits, in which there has been a most welcome increase, are greatest when targeted, with accompanying businessmen, towards specific sectors such as health, education or the environment? Will Her Majesty's Government ensure that our Latin American posts are adequately resourced to deal with what we may anticipate to be increased demand?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend is right and that the time has now come to ensure not only that trade missions are focused but that specific interests are represented on them. In many respects, the time for large unfocused efforts has probably gone. Given my noble friend's long involvement with Canning House and Latin American affairs, I hope that he will be encouraged to hear that in the coming year it is anticipated that there will be something like 46 trade missions to Latin American countries, which is an increase on the present year. The trade missions will, generally speaking, take the form which my noble friend would consider desirable—that is, they will have a clear focus.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, are there any new developments to report, or were any reported at the conference, about the legal regime for mineral development in the sea-bed between the Falkland Islands and Argentina? What opportunities are there for business to become involved in that sector?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there was no specific focus. However, the noble Lord will be aware that a number of licences have been granted in Falkland Island waters. So far as I am aware, no exploration has yet been undertaken, but the last indication I have is that it is expected that there will be exploration earlier than was originally anticipated.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in view of the greatly increased number of visits which will take place during the course of the year, and the increased activity resulting from the conference, can my noble and learned friend reassure me that there are sufficient posts, and that there will be no erosion of the number of people working in embassies in Latin America, especially having regard to the views recently published by the Trade and Industry Select Committee of the other place?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have no doubt that the FCO will always argue its corner and say that additional posts should be provided. In the DTI, we are confident that sufficient resources will be given to expanding the market in Latin America, underlining its key importance. As I have said, the clearest and simplest indicator of that is the fact that more trade missions are planned for Latin America next year than has been the case in the past.

Treaty of Rome: Taxation Provisions
2.43 p.m.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent the powers of Parliament concerning taxation are limited by virtue of commitments made under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, legislation on VAT and excise is established under Article 99 of the treaty. Customs duties are set under Articles 28 and 113 of the treaty. Direct taxation is primarily a matter for the member states at national level and therefore the treaty's state aid rules and non-discrimination provisions are the only limitations on member states in this field. Unanimity is required for all VAT, excise and direct tax legislation and Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise all proposals. The Government will continue to defend that position.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that on 14th January in a Written Answer he told me that any amendment of the Sixth VAT Directive would require the unanimous agreement of all member states of the EEC, and that that directive forbids this Parliament from extending the zero-rate of VAT? First, does he agree that that indicates that Parliament has conceded sovereignty over taxation on a large scale to the EU; secondly, does he agree with me that in the unfortunate event of a Labour administration being formed there is a grave danger that that sovereignty would be further eroded by large-scale concessions to the EU over taxation, most notably VAT; and, finally, that that sovereignty could be re-established only by the denunciation of the Treaty of Rome?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is true that under the VAT directive we have forgone the right to introduce or restore zero rates, as my noble friend rightly deduces from the Question I answered in January. However, it is also true that changes in any other direction require the unanimous agreement of all member states. That leads me on to the second part of my noble friend's question, which is correct: all these tax matters, as I said in my original Answer, are subject to the unanimity rule, and any party, as the party opposite, which wants to find itself never—I think I quote—"isolated in Europe", would obviously give up that veto and that unanimity rule. In that case I am afraid that some of the situations that my noble friend fears would come about.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could give us a briefer answer. For example, is the position at the moment any different from what it was in the days when his noble friend was a member of the Cabinet supporting membership of the EU?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the position on VAT was clearly established in a judgment of the European Court given after the Commission took

1497
infraction proceedings against the UK in 1981. It was then made perfectly clear that the only thing that would be compatible with the Sixth VAT Directive was if zero rating was introduced for clearly defined social reasons and for the benefit of the final consumer. As all the things we currently have zero rated are for the benefit of the final consumer, we are confident, as indeed was my noble friend when he was in office, that our zero-rate position is safe from any attack by the Commission.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, did my noble friend have time to watch Commissioner Monti on television on Sunday when he made it absolutely clear that it is the Commission's purpose to make tax rates, as far as possible, identical across Europe; that there could be no question, for instance, of noble Lords opposite, should they by mischance come into power, reducing the VAT rate on fuel? In other words, the noble Lord's position and that of the Government is clear: it is in total opposition to the Commission's position as expressed by Commissioner Monti.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I did not see Commissioner Monti on television on Sunday. Regardless of what Commissioner Monti says on television or thinks in the privacy of his office, the situation is very clear. The tax position can be changed only on the basis of unanimity. As long as this Government are in power that position of unanimity will be maintained.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that since the case referred to by the noble Lord a further case (416/85) was brought on 13th December 1985 by the Commission against the UK in which the Commission reiterated the necessity for the harmonisation of VAT rates throughout Europe? Is the noble Lord aware that, although that case failed, it is by no means certain that under the Treaty of Maastricht, which has new preambles and recitals, the European court itself would give the same judgment if a similar case were brought today?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am perfectly confident that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, are unfounded. The judgment given in 1988 was clearly directed at situations that benefited commerce and industry, not the final consumer. Indeed, the Commission did not challenge zero-rating on food in shops, young children's clothing and shoes and so on; nor did it challenge VAT on fuel and power in the domestic market. It is up to us to decide what to do. We intend to retain the position of unanimity because we believe that that is in the interest of Britain and every other state. We believe that certain taxation rules do not require to be made uniform across the Community.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the opposition to harmonisation that he has expressed is contrary to the position adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I am well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now a semi-detached member of the
1498
Conservative Party, but does the Minister believe that he should agree with him? Will the noble Lord confirm that in his Budget speech last year the Chancellor argued in favour of the harmonisation of excise duties and said that he intended to adjust British duties to the continental level?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, we had a debate on this matter on Thursday last. I then explained in some detail the Government's position. I recommend that he re-reads it, if he has already forgotten what I said. The position is as I said then and as the Chancellor has said. There are problems about not having harmonised excise duties, for example cross-border smuggling and so on. But I have also made it perfectly clear that while we want to see some convergence of rates on products like tobacco we are determined that they have to move up to our levels as there are perfectly valid financial and health reasons for those excise duties being at the level they are in this country.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I believe that there is time for both sides. However, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been trying to have a shot for some time. I suggest that he goes first, followed by my noble friend.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister remind his noble friend Lord Tebbit that the Treaty of Rome was not the first treaty to restrict Parliament's power in matters of taxation? It was restricted by the equal treatment taxation provisions of the Act of Union with Scotland. Does the Minister agree that the sovereignty of Parliament has not tottered as a result?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Earl. I must check this matter. If I heard what he said correctly, the tartan tax that the party opposite propose for the Scots may well be illegal.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, further to the point raised in the supplementary of my noble friend Lord Tebbit, is it not a fact that as regards Europe there is a slight safeguard against the tax-raising proclivities of a future Labour government, in that they will be prevented from putting up any VAT rate by more than 2.5 per cent.?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as my noble friend rightly observes, in the Sixth VAT Directive there are certain limitations on the rates. The standard rate must not be less than 15 per cent. and only one or two reduced rates can be applied and neither must be less than 5 per cent. There are limitations which I believe are reasonable if we want a level playing field in the single market. However, on major taxes, especially income tax, we firmly believe that the setting of the rate is a matter for the governments of member states.

Railways: North Wales Coast Line
2.55 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to maintain and enhance the North Wales coast rail line.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, Railtrack is committed by its railway safety case to maintain a safe infrastructure and to meet railway group standards, which include detailed standards for maintenance. In addition to this commitment, Railtrack is taking forward a strategy for improvements for the line which will increase line speed to 90 mph. Virgin, which has recently won the InterCity West Coast franchise, plans to take forward a feasibility study into the electrification of the Crewe to Chester route.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. But is he aware of a quotation from Railtrack that it will not undertake any improvement works unless commissioned to do so by an organisation that is prepared to pay for the work required? Can he explain to the House the difference between BR, which was often unable to invest or take risks, and Railtrack, which is unwilling to invest and take risks? Has it been worth all of the hassle for the nil change in what can be done?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is absolute nonsense. We have seen massive increased investment plans by Railtrack and substantially increased amounts have already been spent on the rail network. Railtrack has ambitious plans not just for the west coast main line, where we know that £1.35 billion will be spent on upgrading work, but also for this line. The project to increase the speed of this line will require investment to the tune of approximately £900,000.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I appreciate the interest that the noble Viscount takes in this line. Can he tell us what action is being taken by the Government to encourage rail freight to Holyhead? Can he tell us what investment will be needed by Railtrack to achieve this? Furthermore, can he give the House an assurance that there will continue to be through trains from Euston to Holyhead so that every time one goes there one does not have to change at Crewe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the services are a matter for the franchising director to determine with the franchisee. Of the franchises that we have seen—indeed, all of the franchises are now let—at least the existing BR timetable has been run, in many cases with additional services. I do not believe that the noble Lord needs to be unduly concerned about the results of the franchising of services. There have been improvements in the level and quality of services.
1500
Dealing with the noble Lord's wider point, the Government are keen to encourage freight on to the railway, and in that regard Holyhead is of considerable importance. The Government have made available their freight facilities grant scheme for infrastructure projects where people can put up sensible schemes that show environmental benefits.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it right that the north-west coast line is part of Regional Railways, which is the main operator on the line, and that the latter has recently announced that about 40 per cent. of the workforce are to be made redundant? In the light of that and of the appalling example set by South West Trains, which the Minister has not fully condemned, what confidence can we have that the present poor service will be enhanced or even maintained by Regional Railways?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord finished his question by recognising that the existing service could be improved. We also believe that the service can be improved. For that reason we have taken forward the privatisation programme. I believe that the franchise that is responsible for running this section of the railway has been operating for only one day. It is a little early to say what improvements it has brought about. Of course, staffing is a matter to be determined by a private company; it determines what staff it requires to run a service. It will have obligations under its passenger service agreement for the services that it needs to run. But we should also note that, for example, GWH will replace the entire Mark 1 rolling stock used by north west. By 31st March 2000 it will introduce a fleet of 70 new diesel multiple unit vehicles capable of a speed of 90 to 100 miles per hour. That is another example of the improvements that privatisation will bring.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as we know from the South West Trains episode, staff arrangements impact on the convenience of hundreds of thousands of passengers. If we are to experience a 40 per cent. reduction in the workforce, which has been announced, is that not likely to have a similar effect? Surely the Minister cannot distance himself from staffing arrangements by saying that they are matters entirely for other people and not for him, when hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people will be affected by such narrow-minded, short-term policy?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I assume from that example that the noble Lord will be telling British Airways how many staff it should employ. However, we have heard no such commitment. This is a private company, running a privatised railway service. It has clear obligations as regards the service that it must deliver. We safeguard services and safety through strict

1501
regulations. Within those regulations, we must expect the companies to run the operations as efficiently as possible.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend take 20 seconds or so to list all the improvements which were made to this line when it was nationalised?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, 20 seconds would he an unduly generous period in order for me to make such a list. Clearly, there has been significant under-investment in the railways over many decades and services have declined. We want to see those services improve and that is why we are undertaking a massive structural change. Already there have been major changes to the railways, complaints have fallen by about one-third and there has been massively increased investment. Those are all tremendous improvements which the whole House should welcome.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will be aware that 10 or 15 years ago there were regular direct services between Euston and Holyhead. We are appalled to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that mostly passengers on that line must change at Crewe. Will the Government apologise to the travelling public for the running down of that service? What steps will they require of the rail regulator to improve the service and return it to what it was only 10 or 15 years ago?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, obviously the noble Lord did not hear my response to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I said that all the franchisees have agreed to run services to the British Rail timetable or more. I believe the noble Lord will welcome the announcements made by Virgin for its running of the Intercity West Coast franchise. It is determined to bring forward the new modern tilting trains, with a £150 million investment, reduced journey times, better facilities, entertainment within the trains and more reliability. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome all those improvements when he travels on that line.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Government apologise for running down the service during the past 10 or 15 years?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there is nothing whatever to apologise for. I shall not apologise for better services, more investment, fewer complaints, more innovation and shorter journey times. These are not things to apologise for; they are things to commend.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Minister has told us yet again that the number of complaints has been reduced by one-third. Does he recall that a few days ago when we were discussing South West Trains I reminded him that the notices advising people where to complain had been removed? Is that one of the reasons why there has been a reduction in the number of complaints? If so, can we have the notices back again, please?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have always found the ability to complain of people who travel on the railway to be perfectly adequate. If people are upset with the service, it is important that they complain. One needs to remember that until only a few years ago the passengers' charter did not exist; people were not able to be compensated; if British Rail decided not to run a service it did not run it, often as a result of industrial action. I am pleased to say that there have been tremendous advances in industrial relations on the railways.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, in view of the second part of the Question about attracting freight to the North Wales coast rail line, will the Minister agree to prod Railtrack into getting on with devising its price regulation with the rail freight distributors?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I emphasised that the Government were keen to see more freight on the railway. We recognise the developments that have occurred with the privatisation of the freight operators, as with Railtrack. Beyond that, the Government have an overall role in putting forward schemes such as the freight facilities grant, which is designed to do exactly what the noble Viscount desires; that is, to make a difference where there are infrastructure projects and where a case has been put to the Government. Beyond that, it is for Railtrack to talk to the freight operators, as it continually does, in order to come up with innovative plans.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in response to the supplementary question from my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, the Minister said it was for the operator to cut its staff, and that if it chose to do so by 40 per cent., that was all right. That was exactly what happened with South West Trains, and 70 drivers is nothing like 40 per cent. of the staff. Does the Minister agree that it is of concern for an operator in the north west to cut staff by that amount? Should not the franchising director be encouraged to impose more penal damages than he has done on South West Trains for any inconvenience caused to passengers?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the fact that considerable penalties are laid down when train operating companies do not deliver the services. That was the case with South West Trains and we have seen a considerable improvement in the problems highlighted by the noble Lord. Beyond that, we want to see an efficiently run railway. We have laid down what services must be provided and the operators have volunteered additional services. We want to see a safe railway. Therefore, in terms of guaranteeing the service and the high levels of safety, the Government have a strong role. As regards how the companies go about delivering that, we would not want to fetter their discretion beyond those constraints and regulations.

Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Road Traffic Reduction Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Architects Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Lieutenancies Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Clause 9 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): moved the amendment:
Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("on") to end of line 3 and insert ("1st July 1997").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 9 provides for the Bill to come into force on such day as the Secretary of State shall appoint by order. This is because the Bill consolidates provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and that Act has not yet been brought into force. However, when the Bill was before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, it was noted with approval by the joint committee that if the order bringing the 1996 Act into force was made before the Lieutenancies Bill completed its passage through your Lordships' House an amendment would be brought forward to provide a fixed commencement date for this Bill.
The commencement order has now been made; namely, 1st April 1997, as the date on which the 1996 Act will come into force. As a consequence, this amendment carries through the intention to provide a fixed commencement date for this Bill. The date chosen of 1st July 1997 should allow for a three month period to elapse, as is customary for Consolidation Bills, between Royal Assent and commencement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Justices of the Peace Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Bill
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Education Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley):: 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 Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 112A not moved.]
Clause 26 [LEA plans relating to children with behavioural difficulties]:
Baroness David moved Baroness David moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 23, line 15, at end insert ("having regard to the contents of any guidance issued by the authority to schools in its area in connection with their responsibilities under sections 154 or 306A, and to any written statements produced by those schools in accordance with those responsibilities.").
The noble Baroness said: We are still on behaviour and discipline policies. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that there is a sensible connection between disciplinary policies adopted by schools and support plans of the relevant LEA.
Clauses 19 and 20, which we discussed last week, introduce a new duty for school governors to develop a policy setting out a framework for discipline within the school and for head teachers to plan their disciplinary strategy within the governors' policy.
Clause 26 sets out a duty for the LEA to review and consult upon its plans for supporting schools in the exercise of good discipline; and to set out the arrangements it will make to deal with excluded pupils.
It is clearly a matter of common sense that those plans and policies should dovetail in order to provide consistent and coherent arrangements for the whole area. In particular, it is important that this consistency and coherence will operate between the authority and each of its maintained schools. This could be more difficult to achieve if the demands made of the authority by different schools were in conflict with each other. It is also desirable that, within a given area, there is a degree of consistency of approach between different schools. Clearly it is right and proper that each individual governing body should have control over its own policy. The legislation does of course require governing bodies to have regard to guidance by the Secretary of State. It should also be incumbent upon governing bodies to take account of the policies of neighbouring schools and develop their policies in the light of the support plans issued by the LEA.
This amendment therefore builds in a reference to the issue of guidance from the authority to schools in its area in pursuance of its responsibilities and an encouragement for all parties to work together. It mirrors the proposal in Amendment No. 95 that governing bodies should contact LEAs when developing their discipline policies.
When this issue was debated in another place, the Minister made heavy weather of this simple amendment, which is designed simply to clarify the Bill and ensure greater co-operation among relevant parties—all the schools and the LEAs. The only argument against its inclusion seemed to be that because consultation is required, co-ordination would automatically follow. That is an optimistic stance and one which is not always supported by experience. This Bill would be strengthened by the amendment and I hope very much that the Minister will see fit to accept it and realise the good sense behind it. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness,
1506
Lady David. It is all part of the same wish to try to ensure the greatest possible co-operation and co-ordination among the various partners in education in the way in which they approach difficult subjects. I agree with what the noble Baroness said. Experience teaches us that co-ordination and co-operation are not always the same and that co-ordination is extremely important in those matters.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that we agree with what I suspect are the main intentions behind the amendment. However, I hope to be able to persuade her that it is not necessary to amend the Bill because those concerns are already met by the clause as it stands.
Clearly, an LEA's behaviour support plan should reflect the approach which local schools take to discipline and behaviour issues. Equally clearly, it is essential for the LEA and schools to work together constructively to ensure a consistent and coherent approach to those issues. Schools are at the forefront, after parents, in promoting good pupil behaviour and tackling indiscipline and disruption. That is recognised in Clauses 19 and 20, which will ensure that governing bodies agree the framework for schools' discipline policies, and that those are widely publicised.
Clause 26 acknowledges the need for LEAs to support schools in that role: subsection (2) of the proposed Section 527A specifies that every LEA's plan must cover the advice and resources it makes available to local schools in relation to behaviour problems. That would include any guidance which the LEA might issue in connection with schools' responsibilities in relation to discipline policies under Clauses 19 and 20 of this Bill. Indeed, it ought to go wider than the amendment and cover any guidance or advice which the authority issues to schools in relation to behaviour and discipline. We shall be making that clear in the Secretary of State's guidance to which, under Section 527A(6), LEAs will need to have regard. I hope that that meets the first part of the amendment.
The second part of the noble Baroness's amendment would require an LEA to take account of discipline statements adopted by local schools under the provisions of Clauses 19 and 20. We believe that this point too is already addressed in Clause 26. Subsection (4) of new Section 527A will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations a list of interested bodies whom LEAs must consult in preparing their plans. And LEAs will have to take account of the responses of those consulted.
I give the noble Baroness and the Committee an assurance now that it is our firm intention that LEAs will be required to consult local schools. That will ensure that schools will have a say—not just in relation to their own policies, but also in relation to the full range of the LEA's provision for tackling behaviour problems.
I hope that the explanation and assurances I have given today are sufficient to persuade the noble Baroness both that the Government take those issues very seriously, and that they are fully addressed in the

1507
Bill as it stands. I hope therefore that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for her support and the Minister for his response. His response was, of course, rather what I expected but the Minister has given certain assurances that there will be consultation. However, I hope that it will be both ways—that is, between the schools and the LEAs and the LEAs and the schools and that similar policies will apply within a given area. I believe that the Bill will work much more satisfactorily if that is so. Granted the assurances that the Minister has given, I am happy at this moment to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 23, line 15, at end insert—
("(2) The statement shall in particular have regard to—

(a) the principle established in section 316 of this Act that children with special educational needs (including behavioural difficulties) should where possible be educated in schools which are not special schools, and

(b) any plans made by the local authority or any health authority for children's services in the area.".").

The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 115. Clause 26 requires LEAs to prepare statements setting out the arrangements that they will make in connection with the education of children with behavioural difficulties. In general, the clause is to be welcomed but that does not mean that it is incapable of improvement. Amendment No. 114 seeks, first, to ensure that children are not excluded from school just because they have special educational needs. Indeed, we are seeking to see some of circular 10/94 actually on the face of the Bill. That is because of the discrepancies in practice between those schools which do not exclude those whom they should and those who do exclude even when they should not. Ofsted's report on exclusions in 1995–96 drew attention to those problems. We feel that the discrepancies require a more binding directive to be placed on the face of the Bill.
The second objective of Amendment No. 114 is to ensure that the LEA co-operates with the other agencies, such as social services, to address all the problems of children with learning or behavioural difficulties and thus enable them to remain in mainstream schools. In the ordinary daily experience of many authorities, it is not just the LEA which can bring to bear important aids in the drive to keep children with special educational needs in the mainstream sector. The second part of the amendment is directed at that concern.
Amendment No. 115 would amend subsection (3) of Clause 26. As it stands, subsection (3) says:
"The statement shall also deal with the interaction between the arrangements",
1508
made by the LEA in the statement and those made by its policies towards pupils with special educational needs. While we welcome the acknowledgement that the policy and the practice should at least interact, we believe that Amendment No. 115 would strengthen the provisions of subsection (3) by requiring consistency between the LEA's statement about the children with behavioural difficulties on the one hand and, on the other, the LEA's policies as they affect children with special needs. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I should like to express my support for the amendments. I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 115. The measures proposed in Clause 26(3) requiring LEAs to prepare a statement setting out the support that they will provide in respect of children with behavioural difficulties ensure that the statement required of the authority about the arrangements for supporting good behaviour and discipline should take account of the "interaction" between arrangements for such pupils and its policy with regard to pupils with special educational needs arising from behavioural difficulties.
The measures are designed to promote good standards of discipline and behaviour and, in intent, are obviously welcome. However, where the measures fall short of being effective is in the weakness of the requirement. The word "interaction" recognises that there is a connection between pupils who are identified as having special needs associated with behavioural difficulties and the disciplinary problems which may arise from a similar cause. It suggests that there should be some consistency of practice between the treatment of individuals who come to the attention of the authority by different routes, but it remains weak in its formulation.
It is desirable that the policies adopted by an authority to discharge its responsibilities under different parts of the Bill should be informed by a similar approach. Amendment No. 115 would strengthen the Bill by seeking to ensure that the authority's statement is consistent with its overall policies and practice with regard to SENs. It is likely that local educational authorities would wish to do so in any event and we fully recognise that fact. However, we believe that the amendment would put the matter beyond doubt.
Lord Addington: I believe that both amendments are very sensible. First, they try to bring children with behavioural problems into mainstream schools where it is possible to do so. I believe that we can take it from that that the intention is not to have such children there when it is damaging to other mainstream pupils, but it would stop such children being ghettoised. Surely that is something that we should strive to do for the simple reason that if you remove children from mainstream schools they have great difficulty in getting back into such schools; indeed, their education almost inevitably suffers.
Secondly, when it comes to co-ordination, if you have a behavioural problem which is caused by something like hyperactivity, you must take into account such factors as health authority plans and programming because it is a medical problem which is leading to the

1509
educational problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments or at least give us a very firm assurance that they are unnecessary because the matter is already dealt with.
Lord Northbourne: While I agree with the proposed amendments in that support should be co-ordinated within the children's services plans, I should like to question the philosophy that we constantly hear from the Opposition Benches that it is always best for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties to remain within the mainstream. I simply want to say that that does not correspond with my experience. Indeed, children whom I encounter on holiday schemes from Tower Hamlets go to two different schools for EBD children—a day school, Weavers Field School, and a boarding school, Bowden House School. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the more severely damaged children who are sent to a boarding school make the fastest progress because they are separated from a continual "reinfection", so to speak, with the problems that they have encountered either in the home or in the street culture to which they return every day if they are in a day school or a mainstream school.
Lord Monkswell: In expressing support for the amendments, I do not believe that anyone is saying that there are no occasions when a child needs to be educated in a special school. One of the things that the amendments are saying is that, historically, we can recognise that there have been a number of children who have been to special schools and who would in fact have benefited from being in mainstream schools, with adequate support to enable them to flourish.
However, having said that, I should also like to add that, when we talk about children with behavioural difficulties separately from those with special educational needs, one of my concerns is that there is the risk that we may not recognise that those children have, almost by definition, special educational needs in that they have not learned what one might describe as the "normal modes of behaviour". I happen to believe that that sort of education is something which it is essential for schools to undertake; indeed, it is part of their remit not only to inculcate an academic education but also the whole range of social, personal and practical education which is so essential for young people growing up in a modern world.
If the Minister cannot accept the amendments, I hope that he will go some way towards persuading us that the problem of children with special educational needs will not be sidetracked or detracted from by describing them as just children with behavioural difficulties and, therefore, not really in need of support and assistance.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I believe it will be helpful for me to stress that we are not seeking to impose a rigid policy on LEAs with regard to the way in which they treat pupils with special needs which lead to, or are connected with, behavioural problems.
It is a fact that Ofsted reported that the majority of children who are excluded from school have unmet special needs. Not all those needs will inevitably be
1510
behavioural in origin, but the symptom may have become behavioural. I refer to the example of the child with mild dyslexia who has above average intelligence but whose problem is not recognised and whose frustration at not being able to perform may lead to severe behaviour problems. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the circumstances of some children are such that they may be well adjusted to the home environment but they may have totally ill-adjusted social behaviour that makes them unable to function in mainstream education. Circumstances will vary but these children deserve to be treated as having special needs.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I think the noble Baroness would accept that she, myself, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are very much in agreement when we say that it is obviously not always right that every child should be integrated. As the code sets out—and as all the provisions following the 1993 Act have sought to do—every child should be looked at, whatever his special educational needs may be, in terms of whatever is the appropriate provision for that child within the resources available and all the other factors that LEAs have to take into account.
I start by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I have considerable sympathy for these amendments but they seek to add detail to the framework for LEA support plans as set out in Clause 26. We have drawn that deliberately widely to ensure that the new plans encompass the fullest possible range of local arrangements for pupils with behaviour problems.
As regards Amendment No. 114, I believe it is not necessary. New Section 527A will already require LEAs in drawing up their statements to cover their arrangements for pupils with SEN who have behaviour problems. Those arrangements are subject to the existing legislation, including Section 316 of the 1996 consolidation Act. There is nothing in Clause 26 of the Bill which would relieve an LEA of its duties under that section. It follows, then, that any arrangements set out in an LEA's plan must, under Clause 26 as it stands, take account of those duties. There is absolutely no need to reinforce that in the way the amendment suggests.
Also on Amendment No. 114, I wholly agree that children's services plans are key documents. It is clearly important that LEA behaviour plans build on them, and that in turn children's services plans are influenced by the arrangements set out in LEAs' behaviour support plans; in other words, that all the different component parts of the authority talk together and co-operate. I can certainly give an assurance that we shall cover this issue fully in our guidance to LEAs. But given the variety and the range of local children's services, we do not believe it would be appropriate to have further specific requirements on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 115 does not require LEA support plans to say anything about links with SEN policies. Clause 26 as it stands requires the plans to deal with this. One could argue that the interaction is somewhat on the weak side. As regards that amendment, we agree

1511
that there is a clear need for an LEA's policies and practices in relation to special educational needs to dovetail closely with its arrangements as regards behaviour problems. Clause 26 already ensures they do so by specifying in new Section 527A(3) that that interaction must be covered in behaviour support plans. We shall emphasise that point again in our detailed guidance to LEAs on implementation of their new duty under this clause. Any inconsistency between an LEA's SEN policies and its behaviour support plan would become apparent when the plan was published. It would emerge in any Ofsted inspection of the LEA's services, as provided for by Clause 54 of the Bill which we shall reach at some point later this evening, or perhaps later today.
These considerations will provide powerful levers to promote consistent and well balanced provision for pupils with behaviour problems. While we are sympathetic to the intentions underlying the amendments of the noble Baroness, I hope she would agree that it is not necessary to add them to the Bill in this way.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank other Members of the Committee who have contributed to this debate, and the Minister for his response. It is always rather disappointing when the Minister tells us that he agrees with almost everything we have said but that he will not do anything about it. It seems to me that there may be provisions that ought to be on the face of the Bill but are not. However, given the circumstances, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 116:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
EXCEPTIONAL PROVISION OF EDUCATION IN PUPIL REFERRAL UNITS OR ELSEWHERE
(" . In section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996 the words "or part-time" shall be omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is to ensure that the LEAs' new duty to secure the provision of education for children who are out of school—which was introduced in the 1993 Education Act—is for full-time, not part-time education. I cannot understand how it could be considered right that pupils out of school should be entitled only to part-time education. After all, parents are under a duty to ensure that their children have full-time education, so how can this provision be different?
I am aware that in his letter of 14th February after the Second Reading debate, the Minister made the point to my noble friend Lady David that for some—he gave the example of school phobics or those who are in hospital—full-time education may not be appropriate. However, the definition of "full-time" does not have to correspond with school hours. It is a principle of long standing that full-time home tuition, for example,
1512
is much more intensive than a normal day's school work. Therefore, full-time education can be less than the 9.30 to 3.30 school day. Indeed, that is the case with schools in hospitals.
Nonetheless it is quite unacceptable that excluded pupils receive—as many do at present—only a few hours' home tuition a week. The Minister indicated that he also considered that unsatisfactory. Both the Home Office and the Audit Commission have documented the strong correlation between out-of-school pupils and offending. Surely this is an additional reason for trying to ensure that these pupils should receive full-time education. If pupils who have already demonstrated behaviour problems serious enough to be excluded are left unoccupied and without stimulation, can anyone be surprised that many of them come to the notice of the police? I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this new clause which would ensure that an excluded pupil is entitled to full-time education appropriate to his age, ability and aptitude. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I wish most strongly to support this amendment. I raised this matter at Second Reading. Excluded pupils need a great deal of education, more perhaps than those who have not been excluded. It is most important that they are educated properly. My noble friend Lady Ramsay has raised the point that it is very much excluded children who are the offenders and are constantly in trouble with the police. If they are not occupied, it is not surprising that that is so. It is the duty of parents, after all, to ensure that their children receive education. Therefore, I think the Government should do something to be much surer than they are now that proper education is provided for these children. That seems to me vitally important.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: In terms of benefit to society and to the individual, full-time education for those who have been excluded is paramount. I believe that to allow anything otherwise is a short-sighted policy. I am glad to support the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment. I hope that it will not be rejected simply on the ambiguity of the expression of "full-time education". I understand entirely the difficulty. To calculate how many hours of education in the week are full-time equivalent would be difficult. On the other hand, we know that a number of children who have been excluded receive literally two hours teaching a week. That cannot be sufficient. I hope that some formula will exist—it may not be in the words of this amendment—to impose an obligation to provide supervision as well as education for children who have been excluded. If the amendment is not accepted, there must be some provision in the Bill to make it positively illegal to provide only two hours' education in the week for a child, with no further supervision or supervised activity.
Lord Tope: I add the strong support of the Liberal Democrat Benches. Many of the points have been made. It cannot be right that an excluded child is entitled to less education than a child in school. If anything perhaps

1513
it should be the other way round. As the noble Baroness said when moving the amendment, full-time education does not necessarily mean school hours between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. or 3.15 p.m. There are different ways of providing full-time education. Nevertheless, the quantity and quality of that education is at least as important—some would say more important—for children out of school as for those in school.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said, I hope that the Minister is able to support the amendment, or at the very least will assure us that he will come back with some provision which meets the concerns expressed on all sides of the Chamber. We have not yet heard the Minister's views.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I support the amendment. For the majority of children for whom the measure is appropriate and in their interests, the primary aim is to reintegrate the child into mainstream education as soon as possible. Often alongside the behavioural problems is the problem of under-achievement. The more the child falls behind, the more difficult it becomes for him or her to be reintegrated into the peer group at the end of the process of additional help. Therefore we support the amendment.
Lord Henley: Again I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, on the importance and primary need for reintegration. I cannot say that I am not sympathetic to such an amendment, but there are two main arguments against it that I must address before I advise the Committee as to what I consider the best way forward.
First, I believe that an amendment of this kind could be over-prescriptive. Insisting on the provision of full-time education—we shall come back to that definition; it is important—for all pupils regardless of their circumstances could prohibit LEAs from making the most suitable provision in some cases.
Perhaps I may give one example. The noble Baroness. Lady Ramsay, referred to the letter I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady David, about school phobics and those in hospitals. That is a concern for them. I can think of another. We know that the alienated 14 and 15 year-olds—those coming to the end of their compulsory school life—are at the peak ages for exclusions. The reason that many of those pupils are being excluded, that they are being difficult, is that they are disaffected from normal schooling. A number of LEAs seek to re-motivate such pupils by putting together a package of provisions according to their individual needs. That might involve a couple of days a week at an FE college and a couple of days' work experience. I do not know whether the words "full-time education" would count under that definition. But we know that that kind of provision often works in turning around young people who would otherwise be at risk of dropping out of mainstream society. It gives them a new interest in education, training and the world of work.
1514
We know the effect and advantages of the world of work. I suspect that a provision of this kind could remove the power from LEAs to do that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may press the noble Lord a little further. Pupils from many schools undertake work experience schemes. We are not dealing in that situation with excluded pupils but with those who are required to have a full-time education until they reach statutory school leaving age. To the best of my knowledge, no one has challenged the position that those pupils are not in receipt of full-time education. It is an integrated part of a good programme of full-time education for secondary school pupils in virtually all schools. It would be wrong to dismiss the amendment on that ground.
Lord Henley: I accept that many secondary school children undertake a degree of work experience. As I remember the figures—I stand to be corrected—something like 98 per cent. of secondary school children are doing a small amount—possibly a week or two weeks over the whole year—of work experience in their final year at school. I agree that that is important and a part of education.
However, we are talking about definitions. If we are considering some plan put forward by the local education authority to involve considerably more work experience than that which currently exists, that provision might be affected by the definition of full-time education. If we are to go down that route, we have to be wary and get our definitions right. That is why I come back to the clear difficulty which has to be addressed of the definition of full-time education.
There are a great many other important implications behind such an amendment. The point was not addressed by Members of the Committee but there would be significant cost implications if LEAs simply expanded their current pattern of out-of-school provision. We know that in its report on pupil referral units published in December 1995, Ofsted found that some provision was of both poor quality and extremely expensive. We do not wish to go down that route. It found that the best provision was often also the most cost-effective because those individuals could then be reintegrated into school. There is clearly some scope for more efficiency in this area of education expenditure.
While giving no commitments because, first, of the implication of high costs, and, secondly, the fundamental point on the definition of full-time education, I am advised that work experience in statutory terms is "authorised absence from schools" and is therefore permissible for a short period. But we are talking of much longer periods; and for that reason the definition of full-time education would not necessarily be appropriate.
Having mentioned the three points of cost, over-prescription and definition, perhaps I may say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay. Without giving any commitment, I should be more than happy to consider whether officials can do something on an amendment like this, or whether the noble Baroness might wish to bring it back at Report stage. I shall not

1515
give commitments at this stage, but with the assurance that we might have further discussions between now and Report stage, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister sits down, since his answer seems to imply that for once we are in agreement as regards what we seek to achieve, can he assure us that he supports the philosophy that children who are excluded through behavioural problems should be fully occupied during normal schools hours and that the Government will consider the amendment between now and Report? Does the Minister agree that we should seek to meet the objectives, the general principle and ethos underlying the amendment?
Lord Henley: I cannot accept the noble Baroness's precise words. I believe that the appropriate provision should be made by the LEA. Some provision is not as good as it might be. Some is extremely cost-effective and is very good. There might be times when pupils do not have to be occupied to the full length of the school day. The matter warrants further examination. However, I am not happy with this amendment on the three grounds that I gave: first, potential cost implications; secondly, over-prescription on the face of the Bill; and, thirdly, the definition of full-time education.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. I do not accept the three reasons he gave for the clause not being acceptable. Cost could be worked out—if necessary, within the framework of the capabilities of LEAs. I do not believe the amendment is over-prescriptive. I also think that one does not need to become so "hung up" on legal definitions of full-time education. I agree with my noble friend Lady Farrington that many provisions would qualify under the term "full-time" education and were certainly intended in the clause.
However, given the Minister's indication that he is willing to enter discussions about the matter, I am willing at this stage to withdraw the amendment. I hope that on Report we can arrive at a proposal that is mutually satisfactory and satisfactory to all sides of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 116A:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
HOME SCHOOL POLICY
(" .—(1) The governing body of a county, voluntary, maintained special school or grant maintained school shall ensure that policies designed to promote partnership between home and school are pursued at the school.
(2) The governing body shall in particular prepare, and from time to time review, a written statement "a home school policy" specifying

(a) the school's aims and values;

(b) the responsibilities which the school intends to discharge in connection with the education of children admitted to the school; and

1516

(c) the parental responsibilities, that is the responsibilities which the parents of such children are expected to discharge in connection with the education of their children while they are registered at the school.

(3) In determining the provisions to be included in the statement the governing body shall have regard to any guidance which the Secretary of State may from time to time issue.
(4) Before making or revising the statement required under subsection (1) above the governing body shall consult in such a manner as appears to be appropriate—

(a) the head teacher;

(b) the staff of the school;

(c) the parents of pupils registered at the school; and

(d) other bodies or persons who appear to the governing body to have an interest in the school.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to the amendments grouped with it; namely, Amendments Nos. 126A, 127A-C, 128A-C, 129A-C and 130A-C. I am sure that the Committee will be relieved to know that I do not intend to speak to each of them at this stage. I am sure that others will wish to enter the debate in support of this group of amendments.
The home school policy is an extremely important part of the clauses in this part of the Bill. Amendment No. 116A seeks to insert after Clause 26, in Part IV of the Bill, the following provisions on home school policy:
"The governing body of a county, voluntary, maintained special school or grant maintained school shall ensure that policies designed to promote partnership between home and school are pursued at the school …The governing body shall in particular prepare, and from time to time review, a written statement 'a home school policy' specifying—

(a) the school's aims and values;

(b) the responsibilities which the school intends to discharge in connection with the education of children admitted to the school; and

(c) the parental responsibilities, that is the responsibilities which the parents of such children are expected to discharge in connection with the education of their children while they are registered at the school.

(3) In determining the provisions to be included in the statement the governing body shall have regard to any guidance which the Secretary of State may from time to time issue.
(4) Before making or revising the statement required under subsection (1) above the governing body shall consult in such a manner as appears to be appropriate

(a) the head teacher;

(b) the staff of the school;

(c) the parents of pupils registered at the school; and

(d) other bodies or persons who appear to the governing body to have an interest in the school".

We believe that the home school policy provisions proposed in the Bill need support. They also need a degree of strengthening and clarification. Many issues are addressed in this batch of amendments. I hope that the Committee will feel able to support the proposals. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: This is a very large grouping. Some amendments seem to us to be more important than others. The two that seem to me important are Amendments Nos. 126A and 127B, to

1517
which I shall address myself—necessarily, I am afraid, at reasonable length. I hope that the Committee will bear with me.
The purpose of Amendment No. 126A, and indeed of the whole group, is to make what may appear to be substantial deletions to Clause 30 in Schedule 5. However, they arise mostly because of the structure of the drafting that has been necessary. The effect of the amendments is to require schools—that is, governors and head teachers jointly—to make a partnership document available to parents but to remove the admission condition attached to the present wording. That is what we find we have to insist upon.
This section of the Bill arises from good intentions on the part of the Government. It arises from an idea put into practice by some schools on an entirely voluntary basis which seems to have worked perfectly well. Many have argued that the provision should be more widely extended. As I say, the Government have proceeded from excellent intentions. However, the drafting of the Bill before us is not well thought out; indeed, it is ill thought out and could have unlooked for and damaging consequences. This amendment is designed to improve the Bill by retaining those good and laudable elements while eliminating the problematic aspects of the present drafting.
Every one of us can agree that parents should be given every encouragement to support the education of their children in the schools that they attend. Everyone can agree that the schools themselves should be clear about what they expect of pupils and parents and the ways in which they will help parents to support their children in the learning process. It is eminently sensible that these matters should be clearly understood and clearly written down in a document so that all parties can know where they stand. However, there are worrying elements about a law which allows schools to choose whether or not they will offer such a document and to impose their version of what it should contain. More than that, it seems to us dangerous that that should be done with the sanction of refusing a place at the school if the parents do not comply. The Government are, and always have been, keen advocates of parental choice. But providing a charter for schools to browbeat parents in this way is hardly an enhancement of that.
In Standing Committee D in the other place on 14th January, the Minister conceded that the Government's intention was indeed to tip the balance in favour of schools. In reply to my noble friend leading for the Opposition he said:
"I concede one part of the argument of the hon. Member for Walton. He said that the provision tipped the balance in favour of schools—'weighted in favour of schools', was, I think, the exact expression that he used. That is true, and deliberately so, for this important reason. The Government have talked over and over again in recent years about parental rights, and we have gone to great lengths to establish parental rights to express a preference for a school, to give parents a role in electing governors, to establish school annual general meetings, and so on. It is now time to talk more in terms of parental responsibilities. If this provision does one thing, it enhances and encourages the role of parental responsibility".—[Official Report,.Commons, Standing Committee D, 141/97; col. 541.]
1518
It can be agreed that parental responsibility is a good thing. However, there is an inconsistency here. Parental rights are set out in great detail in statute and in regulation. It is not left to individual schools to determine how far those rights should extend. Why should schools be the arbiter of the extent of parental responsibility? If the Government are now persuaded that parental responsibility is important, they must concede also that it is desirable that it is accepted by all parents.
In the public debate that has surrounded this issue there has been a great deal of talk of home school contracts or partnership agreements. The Bill is careful to avoid terms such as "contract" or "agreement". Such words are associated with voluntary agreements between parties of more or less equal standing. They cannot properly be used to describe a situation where one party is in a position to dictate terms to another. Yet we are here faced with legislation which is weighted in favour of schools, where a school can choose whether or not to offer a partnership document and to determine its content but parents have to accept the school's decision on that point.
However, the clause as presently drafted is not quite as simple as that. It recognises that there is a potential conflict between the ability of a school to refuse admission to a child whose parents will not sign an agreement and the right of access to free education. It makes it clear that admissions authorities can waive the requirement to sign; it gives the Secretary of State the power to strike down unacceptable conditions and to prevent certain kinds of requirement being imposed upon parents; and the final subsection, subsection (6), says that these documents:
"shall not be capable of creating any obligation in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort".
In short, it is conceded that these documents are unenforceable. We have a document which purports to be enforceable but on closer inspection its sanctions are revealed to be ineffective.
What will the practical result be? The majority of parents surely actively support their children's education and want to work with their children's schools? For them, enactment of this part of the Bill will make no difference. Parents will happily sign up to a statutory document, just as they would have subscribed to an informal, non-statutory one. But what of the minority of cases? There are good but argumentative parents who are keen supporters of their children's education but who may object to some particular in the partnership document or may have a principled objection to being required to sign such a document. In those cases—and they will not be a few—there will be a dispute between the parent and the school. Either the school will refuse entry or it will back down and waive the requirement for the document to be signed. That will mean either that the parents' choice of school will have been defeated for no particularly good reason or that the authority of the school in insisting on its partnership document will have been undermined.
Surely neither of those outcomes is desirable? In both cases time and energy will have been expended, resulting in damage to the relationship between the

1519
school and the community that it purports to serve. On the other hand, less conscientious parents who have less regard for the education of their children might readily sign the necessary papers that enable them to secure their child's place at the school in question and subsequently pay no heed whatever to their responsibilities. Once the child has been put on the school roll, the sanction of refusing admission falls. The school is then no more able to procure the appropriate behaviour of the parents than it was before.
In most cases this legislation will have secured no practical advantages and in a small number of cases it will have been responsible for unhelpful or damaging consequences. That is the poor basis that we are presented with for law-making.
Perhaps most important of all, the amendment will require every school to draw up a statement of what it understands to be the mutual rights and responsibilities of school and parent. It will ensure that every parent has a clear statement of where the school stands on those important issues; it will provide the opportunity for a mature dialogue between the parents and the school; it will allow every parent to know what the school will offer them and what it expects of them; and it will provide a vehicle to assist schools in encouraging parents to live up to their duties and responsibilities. In short, it contains all the positive features of a home-school agreement idea and none of the disadvantages inherent in the present draft of the Bill.
If Members of the Committee will permit me, I shall say a few words on Amendment No. 127B, the purpose of which is to insert a simple requirement for consultation by the Secretary of State with parents on the partnership agreement.
Clause 30 works by enabling admission authorities to make the completion of a partnership agreement part of the admissions arrangements of schools. Other amendments in this group draw attention to the contradiction that the Bill introduces between this proposal and the continuing duty of the LEA to educate children in its area. Amendment No. 127B looks at the narrower question of how the documents will be drawn up. It suggests that parents of existing pupils have a valuable role to play in offering views on the detailed content of the partnership documents and that they should be given a voice by the admissions authority before—under the Bill's proposals as they stand—it decides the content.
It is suggested that, solely for practical reasons, consultation might most easily be organised with parents of existing pupils while recognising that parents of future pupils will have a particular relationship with the documents if they are implemented in this form since it is they whose children will be most directly affected by provisions affecting admissions arrangements. Nothing would prevent an LEA casting the net wider in general consultation in its area.
I concede at once that there is one slight difficulty with this, which is that of identifying exactly what that constituency would be. I can offer no easy solution to saying who should be definitively inside and who should
1520
be outside; but I am sure that the constituency itself is an important one, if not the most important one, in this process of consultation.
The Bill rightly acknowledges the importance of consultation elsewhere, as subsection (6) requires LEAs to take note of representations from governing bodies about whether the admission arrangements for a school should include a partnership document and about the terms of any such document and parental declaration and provides for annual consultation thereafter about whether the terms of any existing document and declaration ought to be changed. If the principle of consultation is accepted here as a necessary and important one governing the vital relationship between LEAs and governing bodies within the system of accountability in our public education system, why should it appear to be so unimportant when it comes to the public accountability of the Secretary of State to the parents of children being educated in our schools?
Governing bodies expect to be accountable to the parents of children in their schools and to the wider community that they serve. As an inevitable part of their accountability, governing bodies will necessarily be sensitive to the views and interests of parents. The use of partnership agreements where they have already been introduced in many schools and in various forms demonstrates very clearly the value of such agreements in making the partnership between schools and parents work effectively to the benefit of the children educated in those schools. It is a shared commitment. Closer working together between schools and parents is the hallmark of good schools in this country and elsewhere. That commitment in turn depends upon effective communication and dialogue between the schools and the parents.
Consultation is an indispensable element in the public accountability of our system of democratic government. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment or clarify how the principle of consultation with parents is to be adhered to in relation to the extension and development of partnership agreements in our schools for which the Bill provides. I hope that the amendment is a sensible one within the context of the somewhat flawed plans set out in the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise to support these amendments. I believe that their effect will be to give importance to the whole idea of the parent-school relationship and the mutual obligation which that imposes while subtracting from it what I believe to be the noxious element of making accession to this agreement a condition of admission.
I do not think that anybody in this Chamber needs convincing of the importance of the relationship between the parents and the school in furthering the education of the child. That point has been raised in many of our debates on this Bill and previous Bills.
In practice, at all levels of school education there is a growing realisation of the importance of those agreements or contracts, however one describes them. Perhaps I may refer to one at the upper end of the education system, which was discovered in a major

1521
secondary school in the authority of which I happen to be a member. By telling young people in the sixth form what would be their likely attainment if they worked hard for two years—emphasising that that was not just something which the school could do for them but something which they had to do for themselves—and by reviewing their progress on a very frequent basis, the results obtained by those pupils were very considerably improved. That was a practical, down-to-earth example of a relationship between various players in the educational field. Also, at primary school level, there are quite large numbers of parents going into schools and directly assisting with the education of their children. I have every confidence that a home-school agreement of the type enabled or created by these amendments would be of great use in the children's education.
But we must remember that the point of education is the children. Education is not for the teachers, the governors or even for the parents; it is for the children. It seems to me a most monstrous suggestion that if a parent is incapable, unable or unwilling to sign an agreement prior to the entry of a child into school, then that child can be excluded from that school. Also, on the purely practical level, it cuts across all the traditional ways of admitting children, for example, by nearness to the school, by sibling preference and so on—all criteria which have been built up over time. I find it impossible to see how the association of the excellent idea of a home-school agreement and the admissions policy of a school can possibly benefit anybody in the education system.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: I rise briefly to support the amendment. It seems to me that there are reasonable grounds for concern about the clause as drafted. I believe that schools could use the home-school contract as envisaged as a form of back-door selection, simply by including conditions with which it would be difficult for some sets of parents, some class of parents or some kind of parents to comply. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that consultation with existing parents is important has its dangers in that context. If existing parents wanted to exclude certain other groups of parents, they could do so by including in the proposed partnership documents certain conditions which would be difficult for those other parents to fulfil.
The second danger is that contracts designed and written by the school without consultation with the parents and simply slapped on the table as documents which have to be signed or there would be no entry are not partnership documents. That kind of attitude could destroy the relationship between the school and home which is now absolutely agreed to be a key factor in the educational success of pupils. I do not believe that anybody challenges the fact that home-school relationships and parents' involvement in education are
1522
some of the most important factors in children's success at school. I hope that the Minister will consider making some kind of amendment to the proposals as they stand.
Baroness Warnock: I support the amendments in a negative form, in the sense that I believe that as the partnership appears in the Bill, it has very dangerous consequences.
I want to ask one question which has not yet been clearly answered. What is the case with regard to children in care? Who is supposed to sign the document, which I hesitate to call a partnership for the reasons made clear by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. Such a contract would be useless if signed by the parents of children who have been taken away from them and placed in care.
The reply might be that schools do not have to issue such a document. But schools which are the only schools to which children in care may go—because they are the only schools which do not have contracts between them and the parents and there is no question of real partnership—will automatically contain a vast number of children who have special educational needs that derive from their behavioural problems.
It is very well known that the second largest category of children with special educational needs is that of children with emotional and behavioural problems. Years ago, when writing the report on children with special needs, we became very used to the expression "partnership between parents and teachers". At that time we became extremely conscious that the idea of a partnership worked very well over a whole range of disabilities that children might suffer but not their behavioural difficulties. So often the behavioural difficulty arises in the first place because the child is hopelessly at odds with the parents or is completely beyond the control of the parents. Some of those children are in care and some are wandering the streets.
The idea that an agreement can be reached between the school and the parents of those children, who in a way are the children most acutely in need of improvement in their education, seems rather a fantasy. It is on grounds of wishing to change the precision of the language of the Bill on the question of partnership as well as to challenge the propriety of using a document of that kind as an entry requirement for any school that I support this group of amendments.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I welcome the emphasis in the Bill on the introduction of partnership agreements between schools and parents, which, I believe, have been neglected by certain schools for far too long. The Hamlyn National Commission on Education, which I the privilege to chair, was very much in favour of developing such partnerships to an increasing extent.
My concerns are largely those that have been expressed by my noble friends Lord Northbourne and Lady Warnock. They derive from the single fact that in Clause 30 of the Bill as it stands parents would have to sign a partnership agreement before their child or children could be allocated a place. It is said quite plainly that the intention of the clause is not legalistic.

1523
Yet it reads as though it were a legal requirement. I believe that there is perhaps a remote prospect that the introduction of such agreements as a requirement of entry could ultimately lead to litigation.
It is well recognised that many parents are extremely supportive of their children's education and would welcome the opportunity of becoming much more involved. But there is also evidence that, particularly in certain inner city areas, there is a small hard core of parents who have an anti-education ethos and do not willingly take part in discussions—or indeed would find it difficult if not impossible to accept that they would be required to sign such agreements.
For that reason, I believe that the approach embodied in the principles underlying these amendments is much to be preferred to the way in which the requirement is expressed in Clause 30.
I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will remember that when he spoke on home-school contracts during the passage of the Education Act 1993 he said that in his view the contractual approach was not the right one; it carried too many risks of confrontation and allowed schools too much scope to exclude pupils. He felt that that could be self-defeating, making relationships between parents and staff rather stiff and adversarial rather than promoting partnership. He said that voluntary partnerships entered into with commitment on all sides are preferable to compulsory contracts entered into because they are required. I wholly agree that that would seem to be much the better approach. That is the principle underlying the amendments, which I am happy to support.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has done his homework, if I may say so, to remember that I was involved in that Bill, albeit in a minor capacity. He deserves much praise. However, I shall explain why we believe that the approach we are adopting, which is a permissive one, is the right one rather than the approach put forward by the amendments.
We are discussing a whole group of amendments—in effect, Amendment No. 116A and Amendment No. 126A and those following it. As far as I can make out, they have a broadly similar effect. We have a convention in this Chamber when discussing a group of amendments, and perhaps the noble Baroness will respond to the point later. If both amendments were accepted, there would result what could only be described as a nonsense. The same would be true if Amendment No. 126A, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Tope, was accepted. Clause 30 would then remain as part of the Bill as drafted. I hope that the noble Baroness will advise the Committee on that matter when she responds. The mere passage of one of the amendments would not in any way bind me with regard to the later amendments and it may be useful to put that on the record.
Unlike these amendments, the provisions in Clause 30 are permissive and not compulsory. We believe it should be left to individual schools to choose whether or not they wish to draw up a home school partnership
1524
document or statement; that individual schools admission authorities, be they the schools themselves or the LEA, should be able to choose whether or not to use a home school partnership document in an admissions process. The amendments seek, by different routes—I repeat the confusion between them—to compel the former and prohibit the latter. In our view that is the worst of both worlds.
Many schools recognise that parental involvement is one of the keys to raising educational standards. Many schools have excellent home school partnerships; many publish the type of statement envisaged by the amendments and many have written home school agreements. Probably, most do. We recognise that a few schools have yet to be convinced of the benefits of working with parents. However, legislation is not necessarily the answer. There is a case for the dissemination of good practice and guidance and we shall continue to do that, just as the noble Baroness and others would want to do that. But schools must have the freedom to decide how they can develop their own relationship with parents.
Parents—or, referring to the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, those who currently have responsibility for the care of children—may be invited voluntarily to sign a home school agreement after that child's admission. Nothing in existing legislation prevents schools from doing that. I remind the Committee that our recent admissions circular—Circular No. 696—issued in July of last year makes it clear that there is also nothing to prevent schools admissions authorities from taking into account a parent's willingness or otherwise to sign a home school agreement in determining priority for places where a school is oversubscribed. That has been the case for some time and nothing new in that regard appears in the Bill. But some schools may feel that inviting parents to sign a home school agreement after their child has been admitted is akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Our proposal takes the use of the home school agreements in the admissions process one stage further. They enable—not compel—admissions authorities to refuse to admit a child unless his or her parent signs a home school agreement, even if that means keeping a place empty. It is right that parents should consider carefully whether or not they can support the aims and values of a specific school before seeking a place there. Where they are unwilling to do so, there is a strong case for saying that they should not necessarily expect to gain a place at the school concerned. I do not believe that is a back-door method of bringing in selection, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, suggested.
Again, such matters are best determined locally so that proper account can be taken of local circumstances and the views of the parents concerned. That is why, before schools' admissions authorities change school admissions arrangements, they will be expected to consult parents. That is the position at the moment—I can quote from Circular No. 696 which I have before me—and will certainly apply following the introduction of a home schools agreement policy. Also, under subsection (3) the admissions authorities will have to

1525
take account of the guidance from the Secretary of State. Again, I can give an assurance that we will be consulting on the guidance and it will include the necessity of consulting parents.
The decision on whether or not to use home school agreements in an admissions policy is properly one for the individual schools' admissions authorities; it is not one that would be appropriate for central government. Those that decide to require parents to sign an agreement as a condition of gaining a place in the school will be able to waive the requirement or specific terms of the agreement in individual cases if they consider there are good reasons for so doing. Parents refused a place because of their refusal to sign an agreement will still have the right of appeal to the independent appeal committee, as at present.
Amendment No. 127B, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Tope, also embraces a specific requirement for the Secretary of State, in drawing up any guidance on the use of home school partnerships, to take account of the views expressed by,
"persons representative of parents of pupils in schools in the area".
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, made some criticisms of our drafting—something that he promised to do at Second Reading—when he talked about the infelicities of some of the drafting in the Bill. However, his words seem no better and in fact bring in more confusion. Taken at face value the phrase,
"persons representative of parents of pupils in schools in the area",
would imply that the Secretary of State will draw up individual guidance for individual areas or even for individual schools. I am sure that that is not the intention. The reality is that any guidance issued by the Secretary of State will apply to all schools. It may be that the amendment is simply intended to ensure that the Secretary of State takes into account, for example, the views of national parents' organisations. If so, such an amendment is unnecessary. Such organisations are routinely consulted in consequence of the guidance put out by my right honourable friend and they will have the opportunity to make their views known.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, also raised the point that the clause reads as though it is a legal requirement that parents sign an agreement and that that could involve litigation, if I understood him correctly. Where the partnerships policy is used, it is a legal requirement to sign an agreement in order to gain a place. That is all we are saying. But the admissions authority can make exemptions for individual parents. The clause also specifies that there can be no obligation in contract or in tort in respect of a breach.
The amendments, in the various ways they attack the problem, would remove the substance of the clause and compel schools to do something which is appropriately left to their discretion. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment; if not, I advise the Committee to vote against it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister asked me a question. If Amendment No. 116A was accepted, it would clearly involve a tidying up of the Bill—specifically Clause 30—at a later stage.
1526
Amendment No. 126A and the rest of the group do not follow on from Amendment No. 116A. They are an alternative way of breaking the admissions link and were grouped for that purpose. On this occasion I can—
Lord Henley: May I interrupt the noble Baroness? I was merely trying to make it clear that obviously I would not feel bound, under the normal rules that guide us, to accept this should the Committee decide to accept Amendment No. 116A.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I think the problem that we face is one of grouping, as I understand it. I think what the Minister has said would clearly apply. The only reason they were grouped together was to deal with the fact that the Government are trying to get this legislation through at the very dying end of this Parliament. We still believe very seriously that all the important issues in this part of the Bill ought to have been debated over two Committee days. However, we accept the point made by the Minister.
We cannot accept the Government's position with regard to this. The Government persist in seeing the admissions policy and the admissions authority as having some sort of power, though not to exclude parents. In one of his replies the Minister referred to parents being unable to gain a place. It is not parents: it is children. This is not the free market system of the private sector. It is the sector to provide an education for every child. We believe that the partnership process is not one where the school or the admissions authority ought to be able to say "You are denied access to a place". We believe that in the community, in order to gain a partnership, it is necessary to support the alternative to linking the home-school agreement which, by its very nature, ought to be a freely agreed agreement. That ought to be separated from the right of the child to an education in that locality. In the light of that, I wish to press this amendment.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 116A) shall be agreed to?

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Addington, L.

David, B.

Annan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Desai, L.

Avebury, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Barnett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dubs, L.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton,B.

Borne, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carlisle, E.

Geraint, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Chorley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clancarty, E.

Grenfell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

1527

Hayman, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hughes, L.

Richard, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ripon, Bp.

Jeger, B.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sewel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kintore, E.

Simon, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Stallard, L.

Lawrence, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Longford, E.

Taverne, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tenby, V.

McNair, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mallalieu, B.

[Teller.]

Marsh, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thurso, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tope, L.

Monkswell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Nicol, B.

Warnock, B.

Northbourne, L.

Wharton, B.

Palmer, L.

White, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Ferrers, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gage, V.

Aldenham, L.

Gainford, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Beloff, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Blatch, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Bowness, L.

Hood, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Inglewood, L.

Burnham, L.

Keyes, L.

Butterfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Byford, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cadman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas, L.

Carnock, L.

Luke, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lyell, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chelmsford, V.

McConnell, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Courtown, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Davidson, V.

Manton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denbigh, E.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L.

Middleton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Moyne, L.

Erroll, E.

Munster, E.

1528

Nelson, E.

Seccombe, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Selborne, E.

Norrie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Northesk, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Sudeley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Terrington, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Teynham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reay, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rees, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rowallan, L.

Wise, L.

Saatchi, L.

Wolfson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Young, B.

4.41p.m.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [No requirement to admit persons permanently excluded from two or more schools]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 24, line 33, leave out from ("of") to end of line 38 and insert ("—

(a) a child who has been permanently excluded from two or more schools during the period of two years beginning with the date on which the latest of those exclusions took effect; or

(b) a child who has been permanently excluded from a previous school during the period of two years following the date of exclusion where, in the opinion of the Chief Education Officer employed by the local education authority, the circumstances of the child's transfer from one or more previous schools gives rise to concern that the application of that duty would prejudice the provision of efficient education.

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, the application of the duty imposed by section 411(2) above may be taken to prejudice the provision of efficient education even if the number of pupils of the relevant age group at the school concerned does not and will not by virtue of the admission to it of the child exceed either—

(a) the relevant standard number, or

(b) the admission number fixed in accordance with section 416 below.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 117, I shall be speaking also to Amendment No. 121. These amendments are part of a package designed to clarify and strengthen the section of the Bill related to exclusion from schools. Amendment No. 117 effectively ends the largely illusory right of parents to choose the school for their excluded child after only one permanent exclusion rather than two where the LEA considers that its exercise would prejudice the efficient provision of education.
This effectively gives the LEA the power to step in earlier in the "hard" cases, using its power in the 1996 Act to place a child in a school irrespective of the availability of places—that is, making the best choice for the child.
The phrase used in the Bill, "disqualified person", to describe the excluded pupil has been dropped in these amendments in favour of the description of that person given in the Bill. I know that in Amendment No. 118—and in a great many others—the Government get rid of the words "disqualified person" and I am sure that a good many of us who spoke about that phrase at Second Reading are extremely grateful that the Minister has taken the initiative. For my part, I thank the noble Lord for that.
As it stands, the Bill removes the right of a parent whose child has been twice excluded to gain automatic admission at any school with a vacancy for their child. We must always be cautious in approaching legislation that removes individual rights. In this case it can be argued that the existing clause may have very little practical effect. The capacity of parents to enforce the right that they have in law can apply only where a school conspicuously has vacancies. The schools which parents are most likely to choose are, by definition, popular and therefore likely to be full. The right of the parent, paradoxically, becomes in practice a mechanism which ensures entry of the child to an under-subscribed school which may be unpopular with parents and which may therefore become a substantial recipient of excluded pupils from elsewhere. Your Lordships should remember that the Ridings School in Calderdale—we have all heard a great deal about what went on there—had been forced to admit a number of pupils who had previously been excluded from neighbouring grant-maintained schools. I do not think that any of us wants to end up with all these excluded children being pushed into one or two schools.
Removal of this parental right therefore means that an excluded pupil can be legally denied entry into any school, but means in practice that the LEA's duty to seek a place at an alternative school for the child can operate in respect of any school in the area. Sections 431 and 432 of the 1996 Act give the LEA powers to direct admission of an excluded pupil to schools even if they are technically full. In practice, local authorities will always seek to find a school that is willing to take the excluded pupil and to give them a genuine second chance rather than using legislative power to enforce an admission on a reluctant head teacher. Nevertheless, the existence of this power is very helpful to LEAs in negotiating voluntary arrangements with the schools in their areas so that each school is willing to take its fair share of pupils who have been excluded from elsewhere in order that every excluded pupil would be given a "second chance" in an alternative school.
The effect of Clause 28 is therefore to help and encourage LEAs and schools to work together to get excluded pupils back into mainstream education as quickly and as successfully as possible. This is a valuable addition to the law and LEAs support it. However, the amendment, while remaining within the spirit of the original drafting of the Bill, improves upon it and will make it more effective.
The amendment creates a discretion for chief education officers to operate in the way envisaged in the Bill when a child has been permanently excluded from only one school. It has been drafted in this way because
1530
LEAs do not believe that the right to express a preference should be removed automatically after one exclusion, but it recognises that the circumstances that are likely to arise in most cases after two exclusions could sometimes exist after one; for example, where a parent is "persuaded" by the school to remove a child voluntarily and seek admission to a second school, which then carries out a formal exclusion, the position in law will be that the child has been excluded once. However, for all practical purposes, it will be as if the child had been excluded twice. In these circumstances and others that might be envisaged, we believe that mechanisms to secure an appropriate placement for that child should become available immediately.
Debate in another place on a similar amendment focused on anxieties that the amendment would give too great a power of discretion to chief education officers to override parental preference for an unlimited period of time. This amendment has been redrafted to include a two-year limitation on the alternative power and to make it more explicit that it should be used only in circumstances where there has been a history of "de facto exclusion" preceding the formal exclusion that triggers the power. The amendment has also been improved to rectify certain other technical faults in the original drafting.
I hope that the amendment will make the Bill much better for LEAs and for excluded children and their parents. This is a very difficult area, but I hope that the amendment will help to make things slightly better. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: I am somewhat confused by the amendment because it struck me—having listened to the noble Baroness, I am not sure whether this is the intention—that she was taking a considerably more draconian line with excluded pupils than we were proposing under the Bill. Perhaps that is a sign of New Labour attempting to outflank us on every occasion.
The noble Baroness seems to be suggesting that the parent of the once-excluded pupil shall be treated like the parent of the twice-excluded pupil. Under the amendment, like the parent of the twice-excluded pupil, the parent of the once-excluded pupil would have no right to a place in their preferred school. However, in this case, the decision on whether a place should nevertheless be offered will not be for the admissions authority of the school concerned which could, after all, be the LEA, but merely for the LEA's chief education officer. It will give the chief education officer the very broad discretion to take away the right of parents of the once-excluded pupil, rather than of the twice-excluded pupils to whom we refer, to gain a place in their preferred school.
In drafting Clause 28, we considered very carefully the loss of that right for parents. In concluding that it should be suspended for a period of two years in the case of pupils permanently excluded from more than one school, we judged that such a pupil might rightly be considered to have a proven record of violent or disruptive behaviour. That cannot be assumed in the

1531
case of the once-excluded pupil, as is proposed by the slightly more draconian provisions put forward by the noble Baroness. The exclusion may simply have been the result of a one-off incident caused, for example, by the pupil reacting badly to a temporary upset of one sort or another.
It is not clear whether the parents of once-excluded pupils will have a right of appeal against the chief education officer's decision. In practice, it would be very difficult for those parents to challenge the chief education officer's decision, since under the amendment he does not have to be satisfied that prejudice would be caused at the school of the parents' choice by the child's admission but only that the relevant circumstances "give rise to concern" that there would be prejudice. I believe that that is a very imprecise and weak test. As the amendment is drafted—I believe that the noble Baroness must accept some criticism in this regard—it would be unnecessary for the CEO to concern himself. It would be sufficient if someone else were concerned; for example, a group of parents.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness has discussed this matter with the Church authorities. I believe that some of the voluntary aided and special agreement schools would have considerable doubts about giving the chief executive officer power to intervene in their admissions processes. Currently, an LEA has little say in those arrangements. The matter is left to governing bodies. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate has his own views as to that, because it certainly has implications for such schools. I also point out that the amendment is technically flawed. Subsection (1A) is unnecessary since the duty to comply with a parental preference as to choice of school for an excluded pupil covered by the clause would already have been disapplied by subsection (1) of the provision.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness for what she has said about the amendments that I shall move shortly. From the tenor of the debate at Second Reading and from what she has said, I believe that those amendments will receive a degree of support from the Committee. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: In response to the comments of the Minister, at this stage I should like to take advice on what he has said. I accept the thrust of his comments, but I should like time to reflect upon them and, if they prove to be right, to return to the House.
Baroness David: This amendment seeks to improve the position of excluded pupils and the LEA. It gives the LEA greater power to control what happens to excluded pupils so that they can return to school and are not all massed into one school. I hope and believe that this amendment would make for better planning. I should like to discuss this further in the light of what the Minister has said, particularly about the technicalities of the drafting, and also in the light of what the right reverend Prelate has said. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 24, line 33, leave out ("disqualified person") and insert ("child to whom subsection (2) applies.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 118 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 131, 132, 133 and 134. These amendments are intended to fulfil the commitments that I gave at Second Reading. I undertook to look again, in the light of the concerns then expressed, at the use of the term "disqualified person" in Clause 28 and related clauses to see whether we could come up with a better way of describing pupils who had been permanently excluded from two or more schools, while still retaining the principles of this provision.
The original form of words was a drafting device. I made clear that there was never any intention that any pupil should walk around with a label on his or her chest—or worse—saying "disqualified person". But I recognise the validity of the concerns expressed on that occasion. Therefore, to remove any doubt we propose this series of amendments to Clauses 28 and 29 and Schedule 5. I hope that the Committee will accept these amendments in the spirit in which they are tabled. I also hope that the Committee accept that they honour my undertaking to preserve the principle of the provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris:
"Accept a miracle instead of wit,
See two dull lines with Stanhope's pencil writ".
I can see from the look on the face of the Minister that that is one quotation he does not recognise immediately, although a few moments with the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations will probably assist him. Those were the words of Edward Young in 1820 in Spence's Anecdotes. And so say all of us in 1997, since only last week both my noble friend Lady Farrington and I were forced, sadly, to complain that in over 100 amendments so far the Minister had not felt able to accept even the vestige of one. Lo! here today we are able to thank him for his acceptance so far, not of two lines, but of two words anyway—"disqualified person".
This is a serious issue. I should like to quote one terrible historical occasion. In the late 19th century in Welsh schools it was the practice for any child caught speaking Welsh in the playground or classroom to have a piece of wood placed around his neck and the words "Welsh not" emblazoned upon it. That was a cause of both shame and delight to some of the people concerned, but it was a matter of enormous political passion in Wales at that time. We felt that the use of "disqualified person" might well have come into that category, even in this enlightened England, since I understood that it would not have to be done in Welsh.
The age of miracles is not passed. Now that the noble Lord has broken his duck, I hope that he will go on to rattle up a respectable score of matters that he is capable of taking away and reconsidering. The two words cause deep offence to all kinds of people. In the meetings that we held before this Bill came on to the Floor of the

1533
House, or since for that matter, it was regularly referred to as one of the matters that many people and organisations hoped would be removed from the Bill. We are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to our request. I can only say to him:
"For this relief, much thanks".
Hamlet, Act I, scene I.
Lord Tope: I believe that in the Second Reading debate I was the first speaker to express concern about the use of the words "disqualified person", solely because I was one of the early speakers. That concern was shared by many noble Lords on all sides of the House. I cannot match the literary eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, or his expression. I believe that all I can say to the Minister is, thank you.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, should accept that my education may be limited, but even I would have got the second quotation. The first was beyond me. However, he will also have seen my entering the Chamber with a fairly large pile of documents. I think that to have brought with me the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations in anticipation of the wit of the noble Lord would not have been appropriate or necessary. No doubt those who advise me, if they have a moment, will look up these matters at some point. Having said that, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I beg to move.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 119 and 120:
Page 24, line 35, leave out from ("schools,") to ("during") in line 36 and insert ("this subsection applies to him").
Page 24, line 39, leave out ("in relation").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 122:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
COSTS OF PERMANENT EXCLUSIONS
(" . The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the resources available to local education authorities, including resources from recoupment, in respect of the functions exercisable by them under sections 411A(l)(b), 431 and 432 of the Education Act 1996 are sufficient to enable them satisfactorily to carry out those responsibilities.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to draw attention to the need for adequate funds to be available to LEAs to enable them to meet their responsibilities to excluded pupils. In this connection one should remember the introduction of the special education needs code of practice. It was argued at the time of the 1993 legislation that to introduce better procedures would lead to more efficient use of public funds and therefore no additional resources would be required. One knows that earlier and more comprehensive diagnoses of children's special
1534
educational needs have led inexorably to a demand for more and more costly provision to meet newly developed needs. In short, costs have gone up enormously. The costs of exclusions may very well be similar. To require LEAs to devise and publicise explicit policies to deal with excluded pupils is bound to encourage schools to make increased demands on these services. No bad thing, one might well say, but it will create increased pressure on public expenditure, and that should be recognised by the Government.
The objectives in the Bill of trying to make the public education system more effective by improving schools' approaches to discipline issues, regulating the use of exclusions and trying to secure the best possible continuing education of excluded pupils are all strongly supported by LEAs. They also recognise that an LEA has an important role in that. They have to put in place appropriate frameworks of support for schools, and when a child is permanently excluded they have quickly and effectively to make alternative arrangements for his education or secure admission to an alternative school.
Those functions are recognised by LEAs and by us all as important and necessary, but they do not come cheaply. There is a serious possibility, if not a likelihood, that the resource implications of those functions will, to say the least, sit uncomfortably with the pressure to reduce central functions and delegate more resources to schools.
It may be argued that the problem could be solved by LEAs offering those services for purchase by the schools from their delegated resources, but the structure of the legislation (Clause 26) seems to make it clear that each LEA has explicitly to offer services to meet requests of schools for "support and assistance" in connection with the promotion of good behaviour and discipline on the part of pupils. That seems to amount to a requirement that the LEA offer a free service. In addition, it is part of the LEA's duty to deal with permanently excluded pupils, and the responsibility for providing alternative arrangements for the most difficult and disruptive pupils will devolve on the LEAs. They are of course the most expensive of all.
It is therefore most important that we can be sure that the resource implications of this legislation are fully taken on board by the Government and that the Secretary of State will give proper consideration to ensuring that LEAs have sufficient resources to implement it. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Perhaps I may say just a few words in support of the amendment. I had the opportunity during the past few weeks of discussing this problem with a recently retired head teacher of a secondary school in my area. He said that sometimes this matter can be easily settled but at other times it is extremely difficult and costly. Occasionally head teachers can, in the kind of freemasonry that exists among head teachers of secondary schools, get together and discuss excluded pupils and by moving a difficult and disruptive child from one secondary school to another can, as it were, give that child a fresh start and a clean sheet.

1535
It is possible in certain such cases—they are more than a few—to solve the problem cheaply, quickly and effectively. But in other cases that is not the case. I should like to ask the Minister how any cost estimates for this activity have been arrived at. Secondly, is it obligatory that the LEA offers a free service, or would it be permitted to charge for its advice? Thirdly, is there a known average cost for fulfilling responsibilities to a permanently excluded pupil? That would be a helpful figure if it is available.
Fourthly and finally, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of, as I am sure he is, the activities of organisations such as Cities in Schools. I have had extremely useful discussions with the officials of Cities in Schools, who seem to be offering a remarkable service to excluded pupils by arrangement with LEAs in certain areas. If they have an 80 per cent. plus success rate with excluded pupils by virtue of the fact that they can pay close attention to individual cases. I should like to know whether the Government approve of that organisation and others like it as fulfilling a useful role in dealing with this difficult and recurrent problem.
Lord Tope: I support the amendment and the concern which was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. I know that the costs of SEN have soared astronomically in recent years. I would not attribute that entirely or directly to the code of practice, but I am certain that that has been part of it. For the reasons that have been given, the same could well happen, for good reason, in the case of exclusions. I await with interest the answers to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who as, so often, posed the questions that I was going to pose. It is to be hoped that we will receive the same answers.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may intervene briefly in the light of the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, to make the point that the Churches have made provision in this area in the past. I think, in particular, of St. Francis, an institution of the National Society, which provided the kind of help to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred. It is the lack of resources which has forced a number of these institutions to close. Therefore, the question of resources is of enormous importance.
Lord Henley: Pupils who have been excluded from school should receive the appropriate support. That is something with which we all agree and which local authorities are bound to offer in appropriate ways. The amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State a wholly inappropriate role in scrutinising the availability of such provision. Resources in relation to excluded pupils, or for that matter in relation to all educational matters which are the responsibility of LEAs, are provided from within the local authority's overall budget. It is up to local authorities to decide what provision is needed. The Government play a role in deciding what the overall level of resources should be. That, in essence, is the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord,
1536
Lord Morris, about the Secretary of State determining what the need should be. He will know that it is part of the annual public expenditure round, and then of negotiations with the local authorities, as to what the final support should be.
It should not be for the Government to lay down what that should be. It would be wholly inappropriate. But within the resources available to them, it is properly for local authorities to decide what support they should devote to meeting the needs of pupils excluded from school.
I say in all sincerity to both noble Lords opposite that it is difficult to see how that local discretion can be reconciled with the amendment. I just cannot understand how the two parties opposite, who believe in the independence and autonomy of local authorities, can support an amendment like this.
The question is not whether schools and local authorities can afford to provide effective support for excluded pupils but whether they can afford not to do so, as the alternative to successful education and re-integration—something about which we talked earlier—of excluded pupils should be their long-term aim and could possibly be cheaper. It is an expensive and often ineffective alternative if the LEA is obliged to continue to provide for pupil referral units, or whatever, if reintegration fails. Again, perhaps I may mention the Ofsted report of late 1995 which I mentioned earlier. In that inspection it was made clear that the cheaper provision was sometimes the better provision and the mere level of expenditure on any provision was not necessarily a sign of how effective it is.
For those reasons, it is important for the LEAs to have in place effective policies which support the education of such pupils and their re-integration into mainstream schools. The introduction of LEA behaviour support plans under Clause 26 will help to ensure that they do so. For the first time, the full range of each LEA's provision in relation to pupils with behaviour problems must be the subject of local consultation and the LEAs must publish details of their policies and arrangements.
The noble Lord asked about Cities in Schools, a programme of which I must confess I was not aware. However, my officials are well aware of the work that is being developed. Some LEAs and the department have been encouraging that—
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am happy to hear that his officials are in possession of that information. However, I shall ensure that I send him all the information about this valuable service.
Lord Henley: If the scheme is as effective as the noble Lord says, it is one that I shall be more than happy to know about. I regret that it is not within my remit in the department and perhaps that is why I am not aware of it. I shall be more than happy to read the information that he sends.

1537
I hope that for the reasons I have given the noble Baroness will feel it unnecessary to press her amendment.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I find the Minister's response very disappointing. The amendment is about ensuring that resources are available to the LEAs. It has nothing to do with interfering with an LEA's internal responsibilities. I did not understand the Minister's point about that.
It is cold comfort to be told that the LEAs must find the wherewithal to carry out these functions from within their own resources. Anyone who has first-hand experience of LEAs and their current problems knows the real difficulties which exist in providing the requirements for children with special educational needs. The issue of looking after excluded children shows all the signs of going the same way as that relating to children with special educational needs. It is a difficult burden on LEAs.
As I made clear, no one, least of all the LEAs, believes that anything but good is coming out of the actions which are laid down to look after the needs of excluded pupils. The amendment related only to the question of where the resources will come from. That is all it was about and we have not had an answer from the Minister—
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. This year the schools have had a pretty good settlement. We made available an extra £1.7 billion. That is money from taxpayers going to LEAs. It is up to LEAs then to decide how to spend it. The noble Baroness cannot have it both ways and say, "Yes, but governments then find specific extra money for specific things". That is taking the discretion away from local authorities.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The Minister must be as aware as I am of the difficulties which the LEAs already have in relation to special educational needs. That is the best example because it is the best parallel for taking on the responsibilities for excluded pupils. However, I see that I shall get nowhere with the Minister and in a spirit far from contentment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Appeals in the case of persons permanently excluded from two or more schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 123 to 125:
Page 25, line 30, leave out from ("made,") to end of line 32 and insert ("section 411A(2) applies to the child.").
Page 25, line 37, leave out ("who,") and insert ("to whom,").
Page 25, line 38, leave out from ("made,") to end of line 39 and insert ("section 411A(2) applies.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 118. I beg to move.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 125A:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS: ANONIMITY OF CHILD
(" . Where any child is the subject of disciplinary proceedings within a school, or related appeals procedures, there shall be no publication which reveals the name, address or school of the child concerned in the proceedings, except as may be required by the school's disciplinary procedure or any statutory procedure.").
The noble Lord said: Recently there have been an increasing number of occurrences where cases of alleged indiscipline on the part of individual school children have made the national news; that is, radio, television, newspapers and so forth. Serious anxiety has been expressed in a number of quarters about the damage that that can cause to children, their friends, families and communities. There is a precedent for our proposal at Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. That prevents the publication of details about young people who are subject to proceedings in the courts. Those rules are firmly enforced and as a result the process of youth justice is enabled to proceed unhindered. How many times have we heard the phrase, "The young person whose name cannot be revealed for legal reasons"? That appears to be a remarkably effective deterrent.
It is a paradox that a young person accused of a serious offence outside school automatically receives the protection of legal anonymity, but children accused of misdemeanours at schools can find themselves the subject of national attention and branded, to quote a recent example, "the naughtiest child in the country". To have that label hung around one's neck must be as inflammatory as being labelled a disqualified person.
It was used of someone who I shall call Boy X, simply in order to avoid naming the poor fellow again. He was the subject of the exclusion row at Manton School in Nottinghamshire. The effect of that was to make Boy X a hero among his peers. Anyone aged from 10 to 14 will tell you that a boy or girl excluded from school instantly becomes a member of an elite. In the old days he or she was caned. He was pointed out as one of the boys who was regularly caned by the headmaster and of whom it was said, "My goodness, can't he take it". It gives a wholly unnecessary and undesirable notoriety to the children concerned. However, it will also be remembered when Boy X applies for a job near Manton School in Nottinghamshire. In fact, he would be well advised to get as far away from Nottinghamshire as he can when he seeks permanent paid employment. Furthermore, the notoriety is unnecessary unless one regards it as part of the punishment.
It might be possible to argue that the shame and obloquy of being branded in such a way by the tabloid press is part of the punishment. I would answer that by saying that all too often it appears before any guilt is established. Although of a lesser order of seriousness, school exclusions take the form of a quasi-judicial procedure including rights of appeal. Undoubtedly, it is the case that the individual child's right to a fair hearing and natural justice can be seriously prejudiced by media

1539
coverage. In addition to undermining due process in the fair disposal of the immediate cause of disciplinary action, there is a danger of much longer term damage to the individual child.
Being publicly branded as wicked, evil or irredeemably disruptive at a young and impressionable age can have a profound effect. It can often bring about the result which the branding suggests. Even if the disciplinary procedures work properly and the young person concerned is ultimately not excluded from school, the very fact of national publicity can make it impossible for him to continue in that institution.
Similarly, it is very difficult for a person who has been branded by the media to move to a different school and become integrated because everyone at the new institution will be perfectly well aware of the case. The new pupil will be pointed out in playgrounds and will be noticed by all his peers. Inevitably, that will militate against re-establishing successful educational progress. In many cases, it could and would be a permanent blight on the young person's life.
In addition, the onus lies upon the Government, and perhaps the Minister, to prove that to name the individual concerned is necessary. I hope that the Minister will not tell us that the press, local or national, will usually act responsibly. We have a thousand recent reasons for noticing that it has not and it does not. We all know that existing voluntary press codes suggest that children should not be named or interviewed without the consent of their parents. It seems that that is well and good, if it works. But recent experience has shown that that is an appallingly unsatisfactory and inadequate safeguard. For example, parents who are unfamiliar with being in the limelight and who may feel that it would be extremely beneficial to have their point of view aired in public are easily tempted to give their consent and to speak voluntarily to the media.
We have all had experience of being telephoned and asked to comment or to fill in a lacuna in the story a journalist is trying to write, which, of course, will be wholly to our satisfaction. A journalist will talk on until he gets what, in his trade or profession, is known as the "killer" quote. Sooner or later, any one of us has been put in the position where we have said something which we perhaps did not intend to say. We have had one or two quite recent examples in your Lordships' House. I shall say nothing about the individual instances, but they were painful to all concerned and should never have occurred.
Parents are placed in that position and are perhaps even more vulnerable than we are. Many of those who have spoken to the media have lived to regret their decision when they realise the full implications of what follows. But by then it is too late. Their name, address, such descriptions as "attractive, blonde-haired mother of two" and the identity of the child become public property and there is no way in which to recover their anonymity. There is no way back.
This amendment, about which I feel very strongly, as the Committee will probably have noticed, would protect children by preventing—in the scriptural sense that it would go before—disclosure of personal details in the media.
It is important to note that the drafting of the amendment would not preclude discussion of any general issues raised by particular cases or, indeed, identification of particular schools. Therefore, this amendment presents no threat to press freedom. The press need not fidget that they are being shackled in any way whatever. The amendment would not have prevented the media reporting the overall situation at, for example, the Ridings School but it would have prevented some of the more specific abuses which have subsequently given rise to complaints, many of which are still before the Press Complaints Commission.
The amendment makes it clear that the limited publication necessary to allow the legitimate exchange of information among professional persons entitled to have it would not be impeded, and the local authority would be able to undertake such communication of relevant details to fulfil its function under other education Acts. I should stress that the amendment has the support of the National Governors Council and the local authority associations.
I end my plea for this amendment with a short quotation citing examples of unacceptable behaviour by the media from a report of the 22nd annual meeting of the Metropolitan Local Education Authorities at Salford in November 1996. It states that that behaviour included,
"offering money to children as an inducement to act up for the cameras".
Many of the children would not have needed any inducement at all to do that but money was actually offered. It goes on to refer to,
"The use of a mobile crane and telephoto lenses to film pupils in the classroom".
I think that most of us will have seen the shocking television pictures of that taking place. It goes on:
"Branding individual named children, who had been found by an independent body not to merit exclusion from school, as 'unteachable' or 'out of control"".
It is against that that I am fighting, and I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I support the amendment. I attended the AMA education conference to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred. That took place shortly after the news and media circus at the Ridings School. Calderdale, the local education authority concerned, is a member of the AMA and naturally there was great concern about what was going on. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to a number of activities by the media there about which, I think it is fair to say, all of us—and most of us are fairly hard-bitten as regards the media—were quite shocked. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the fact that the media offered money to children to act up for the cameras. The sum of money quoted was £150. That is quite a lot of money to me, and to a child it is a lot more. That is not just pocket money. It is a substantial sum of money. I do not believe that those stories were disputed. They were accepted generally to be true.

1541
There is an area of very great concern here. It is fair to say—and I should put it on record—that at that conference the AMA did not call for statutory restrictions on such reporting but called on the Press Complaints Commission to develop and implement a professional code of conduct and so on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, the amendment does not seek to prevent the media reporting and discussing the issues which arose at the Ridings School. Nor does it seek to prevent the naming of the school. But it seeks to prevent the naming of individual pupils, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, gave good reasons why that should be so.
First, it is a paradox that where children are accused of misdemeanours outside school there is a law to prevent them being named. When those misdemeanours, which may sometimes even be the same misdemeanours, are committed inside school, and subject to school disciplinary procedures, there is no legal prohibition. That must be a paradox and we should take this opportunity to correct that in relation to the naming of individual children.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said rightly—and we all know and recognise this—that at the time it can be enormously seductive and attractive to children to be the hero of the moment and have their name in the papers and to be foremost among their peers. But that soon fades and we all know, perhaps better than the children concerned, how quickly it can fade and what price those children may have to pay later for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the parents of those children, who may often feel that they have a real grievance. They may welcome the attention and interest of a journalist in promoting that grievance. They may thereby find that the story of their child is plastered across the pages of the national or local press; and it is more likely to be the local press.
It was felt not to be right that that should be so in regard to legal proceedings. Exactly the same issues should apply to what were referred to as quasi-judicial proceedings—certainly proceedings within schools. The same issues apply to such proceedings and we should take the opportunity of this amendment to correct that paradox. The same restrictions should apply to the naming of children and young people in school proceedings as would apply to them were they having proceedings taken against them in the courts of the land. I support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Morris of Castle Morris, about the behaviour of the press on many occasions. Like the noble Lord, I refer especially to the instance at Manton and that at Calderdale. However, I should make one point about Manton. As in many similar cases—and I shall stick to calling him a "boy", even though his name was published—it was the boy's parents who drew the case to the attention of the press. The mother in that case believed that that was in the boy's best interests. That implies that the difficulties are somewhat greater than the noble Lord has quite grasped.
1542
I have much sympathy for what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. I also have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. Nevertheless, there are difficulties in framing suitable legislation which would be an effective and practical solution. I should like, first, to make one small point. The amendment is drafted far too widely when it talks about "disciplinary proceedings". For example, does that cover every possible disciplinary proceeding from mere oral rebuke up to exclusion? Secondly, there is the problem of enforcement, and the proposed new clause says nothing about that. For example, should publication of the proscribed details be a breach of the criminal law and, if so, what should the penalty be?
I accept that we are discussing a complicated area and that it is something which goes wider than my department; indeed, I believe that it would quite likely involve the Home Office, the Department of National Heritage, because of its interest in the press, and could even have implications for the European Convention on Human Rights. However, I acknowledge that there is possibly a problem which needs to be tackled. I should like to consider the matter further to ascertain whether—and I stress "whether"—a workable solution can be found. I shall certainly read carefully in Hansard what both noble Lords said and, indeed, I shall consider carefully what others might wish to offer me in the form of writing. I do not think that I can promise that I will be able to come back with anything; indeed, I do not think that the noble Lord would necessarily be able to do so in view of the timescale involved and the fact that we have reached a relatively late stage of the Bill. However, as I said, I accept that there is the possibility that we have a problem here and one which needs to be tackled.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Of course there are difficulties. Indeed, I would not like to try to give a definition of "disciplinary proceedings" from the Dispatch Box. There is a genuine question as regards how this provision would be enforced. However, I do not believe that the problem is insuperable but it needs serious consideration in a wider forum than this and among a more expert group of people than is the case in a Committee stage in this Chamber.
I therefore gratefully accept the Minister's offer to go away and think about the matter, without commitment and without prejudice of any sort. If we on this side of the Committee—and I believe that I can speak for the Liberal Democrats on this occasion—can be of assistance, I am sure that the Minister has only to ask us and we would be delighted to attend any small meeting which he might like to arrange. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Schedule inserted after Schedule 33 to the Education Act 1996]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 64, line 22, leave out ("constituted in accordance with paragraph 3").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical drafting amendment to remove from paragraph 13(2) an unnecessary cross-reference to paragraph 3. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We are content.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Home-school partnership documents]: [Amendment No. 126A not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 26, line 31, after ("education") insert ("and the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 196 to 200 which I believe all deal with the same area. The amendments before the Committee are concerned with moral and spiritual education. It is a most important issue which has not so far been touched upon in any of the other amendments which have been considered under the Bill.
I believe we can all agree that there has been a general call today for a moral and spiritual revival. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, both in this Chamber and outside, has made such an appeal which I believe was very welcome. I am sure that we were all deeply moved by the statement made by Mrs. Lawrence after the tragic death of her husband. She made an important national appeal for a statement of moral and spiritual values. They struck a chord in our society and, I believe, were widely welcomed throughout all the political parties.
Therefore, it seems to me that we have an opportunity with the Bill to do something about this issue. I believe that it could be particularly valuable to send a clear message to the new body which is to be set up under an acronym which I cannot possibly pronounce—QNCA —and to the education service generally, to governors and to teachers on the importance of moral and spiritual education, something which I believe has much support in this Chamber.
In tabling the amendments to the Bill, I should like to make it clear that I am not someone who believes that schools alone can instil those values. Teachers have an immensely difficult task today. I hope that such amendments will be seen as an attempt to be helpful in a difficult situation. As I am sure we all know, many teachers work hard and successfully to instil into their pupils moral and spiritual educational standards; indeed, visits to schools show how effective that can be. Those teachers deserve our wholehearted support.
Many people find it difficult to talk about such matters, and schools alone cannot be held responsible. I should like my amendments to be seen as part of a general need for society to look at moral and spiritual values. They need to be seen in conjunction with the fact that I believe parents have a very important role to play in all of this and one that is in many instances more
1544
important than that which can come from schools. But they, too, find it difficult to know what to say. I also hope that we shall hear from the Churches, because I believe that they, above all, have an important role to play in such matters.
Perhaps I may make one general observation. We have had much discussion not just on this Bill but in this Chamber about crime and the rule of law. One of the questions which I believe we should ask ourselves is why in the 1920s and the 1930s, when poverty was so much more widespread and people suffered so much more, there was far less crime. Although that is a subject for a long lecture, one answer is that adult society spoke with one voice. If a boy got into trouble—it was more likely to be a boy than a girl—he was, first, told off by his father and his mother, then by the school and, if necessary, told off by the police. Everyone knew where they stood on a set of values. One of the difficulties today is that people simply do not have that kind of code to abide by.
The basic principle behind the amendments is extremely important. Amendment No. 127 would impose a general duty and, in a sense, is a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 196 to 200. The 1988 Education Act requires the curriculum to be balanced and broadly based, which includes a requirement to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils and to prepare them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Thus it asserts that spiritual, moral, social and cultural values form part of a broadly based curriculum.
The 1992 Government White Paper argues that education cannot and must not be value free. It states:
"At the heart of every school's educational and pastoral policy and practice should lie a set of shared values which is promoted through the curriculum, through expectations governing the behaviour of pupils and staff and through day to day contact between them".
The 1992 Education Act reinforces this by requiring that inspectors report upon the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils within the schools which they inspect. Therefore this matter already has precedents in law.
What I think is the problem today is that there is a separation between what can broadly be described as the secular curriculum and the moral and spiritual curriculum. I believe that education means that spiritual, moral, social and cultural values are most often associated with religious education, and at best today form what can only be described as a kind of "add" on to the central task of schooling, which is the delivery of the secular curriculum. This view seems to be supported by a selection of reports that I have seen from Ofsted showing that schools have a great deal of difficulty in this area.
The SCAA forum on values in schools has sought to reach a consensus, following a wide-ranging consultation, on those values which all schools should be promoting across the curriculum. We now have to consider how far this will be taken up by the new QNCA. However, the statements of value which have resulted are not linked to religious belief or tradition. The danger here is that the set

1545
of values which will become the Government's guidelines for all schools, while representing the lowest common denominator among a wide range of people who were consulted, are actually much more likely to become a ceiling.
The problem is that there is a separation between the secular curriculum and spiritual and moral development, which means that in the challenging context of modern life pupils are in many cases being inadequately prepared as young people to understand the significance of spiritual, moral, social and cultural values for the whole of their lives.
The amendments that I have proposed will begin to address these issues—they are simply a start—by making a connection between the spiritual and moral development of pupils and the secular curriculum. They also make a connection between spiritual and moral development and a belief in systems and traditions. They do this—I refer to Amendments Nos. 196 to 200—by asserting that the religious traditions of Great Britain are in the main Christian, and that in the formulation of policies relating to the aims of schools and the spiritual and moral development of pupils, proper regard should be paid to that fact by local education authorities and governing bodies. Further, they require head teachers to ensure that the secular curriculum, in so far as it relates to the spiritual and moral development of pupils, is compatible with the policy of the governing body, and require local education authorities and governing bodies to include spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in the formulation of policies for the secular curriculum.
I recognise that there is a great deal of concern in schools as regards talking about religion at all. There is a great deal of concern in society as regards talking about religion at all. Yet I could produce a great many statistics from a variety of sources which assert that, contrary to generally perceived opinion, a high percentage of the population sees itself as being a Christian of one kind or another, even if those people do not regularly attend Church. One of the most useful things that we can do is to look to values and standards which have stood the test of time.
I was struck by a speech of Dr. Nicholas Tate—he has sent me a copy—in which he talked about our shared and common heritage. I wish to conclude by quoting from that speech:
"Unlike previous societies we lack a shared story to tell ourselves about who we are, where we came from and where we are going. We had such a story once. It was based on the narratives of the Bible. We hear it loud and clear in the literature of the Middle Ages. We hear it still in Tudor and Stuart times: in the sonnets and sermons of Donne, and (loud and clear still) in the poems of Milton. People continued to hear it throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in the Book of Common Prayer and the Authorised Version, but weakening now and competing with contrary voices. It peters out finally in our century and has almost ceased to be heard, even at times within the Church. But we haven't replaced it with a new story that is widely shared".
A good basis for choosing to do anything in life is considering whether what one is proposing to do has stood the test of time. These shared values have stood us in good stead for nearly a thousand years. I see no reason why they should not stand us in good stead in the 21st century. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: It gives me great pleasure to support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I wish to endorse what she has said and perhaps in one or two regards to elaborate on it. The word "spiritual" was insisted on by a former Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, when he negotiated with R. A. Butler on the terms of the 1944 Act. I think it is fair to say that the term lay dormant and almost unused until the 1988 Act when it was used in spelling out the purpose of education as having spiritual, moral, social and cultural implications. That is now also built into the inspection process of Ofsted, which is required to inspect these dimensions of education.
As the noble Baroness has said, there was a temptation in the original emphasis to look particularly to collective worship and religious education as being the means by which the spiritual and moral development of pupils should be encouraged. She is absolutely right in insisting that it has to be wider than those two elements. It is not only the ethos of the school about which we are speaking, but it is also the curriculum. The whole curriculum cannot be value free; it is the whole curriculum which has to be measured against these elements of development of young people.
I wish to make one or two comments with regard to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority document. The noble Baroness has already referred to the remarks of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I encouraged him to look at the SCAA process and to use it as a peg on which to hang comments and in particular to promote a debate in this Chamber which took place in July of last year. I think there was a widespread feeling that that debate was of significance and value. The point I am making is that it arose out of the work which had been done by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
The difficulty of the forum which SCAA has proposed is that it has been based on consensus. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, there is a danger that that forum will simply propose and put forward—indeed it has proposed and put forward—what can command general assent. There is a distinction between what is the case and what ought to be the case. Those of your Lordships who are students of Immanuel Kant will know the emphasis he lays upon unconditional obligation—the sense of that which ought to be the case.
It is perfectly possible to accept that the SCAA document describes what is the case at the moment. However, it does not necessarily describe what ought to be the case—what are those shared values which ought to be part of our heritage which are shared with youngsters within schools. The SCAA forum process cannot deliver that dimension of values, it can only deliver the case at present. I owe that insight to a conversation with the chief executive of SCAA, Dr. Nicholas Tate, who clearly is influencing a number of us in the debate. He made the point that it is perfectly proper for Parliament to legislate for what should be the case in the light of our convictions but that the forum can only describe where people are at this moment.

1547
Many schools have difficulties over the word "spiritual". Those who are religious find difficulty in understanding the notion of spiritual without its setting within religion. Those who are not religious find difficulty in attaching meaning to the word. On occasions I have had conversations with heads of county schools in my diocese. They ask what is meant by spiritual development. Many are finding answers and I believe that that debate is significant and important.
However, one of the difficulties as regards the SCAA document is that people found problems in recognising the routeing of spiritual development and values in religious traditions. In this country today many people are not religious. Some make particular point of declaring that. Because of the emphasis on consensus, those who represented the Churches in the SCAA forum found great difficulty in obtaining any acknowledgement of religious routeing, both spiritual and moral.
I recognise that schools are not entirely clear what they have to deliver in this context. I reinforce the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that schools, parents, Churches, and indeed those of other religious traditions have to work together. Young people are influenced by many senses of belonging: to school, family and community of faith. Each of those senses profoundly affects the way that young people think.
Nevertheless, within the overall partnership there is clearly a role which schools have to play about which some may not be entirely clear. Many young teachers are not quite sure what they are expected to deliver. They are clear about the national curriculum and other aspects that they have to deliver, but not as regards this area. It is important that initial teacher training and the training of head teachers should include reference to spiritual and moral development. I hope that the guidelines now being issued by the teacher training authority on what is to be delivered to those who obtain qualified teacher status will include reference to those dimensions of education.
I accept the phrasing of the amendment which refers to having regard to religious traditions which are in the main Christian. However, we need to recognise that our shared story in this country includes religious traditions other than Christian. The values that we propose are almost entirely shared by other religious traditions. We do not need to regard those values as being derived solely from the Christian tradition. We can look for allies among other communities of faith as we seek to restore those values to the heart of our own story as a nation, and to our educational system. I am delighted to support the amendment.
Lord Addington: The debate on this amendment brings to mind several debates in which I have found myself contradicting the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Spiritual, moral and cultural development depends on one's view. We are at the mercy of fashion. From the Benches opposite over a period of time we have heard much criticism of trendy theory. I suggest that at present the trend is towards what I regard as a more traditionalist view.
1548
I agree with the logic of the right reverend Prelate who spoke but I disagree with his conclusion. We have many traditions and styles. We have had a similar debate as regards SCAA. If a specific provision becomes part of the curriculum and one says, "Thou shalt do it in a certain way", that alienates certain people.
As regards the shared tradition of spiritual guidance, for every example of good, moral sense one can find an example of bigotry. Societies which say, "This is the way that we go forward", traditionally become incredibly intolerant. On the last occasion that we debated the SCAA report, I used the example of the communist society of Eastern Europe which gave us a mantra to chant. It happened to be one interpretation of the works of Marx. There is always a danger of some such development at a minor level.
I suggest that the cultural and spiritual development of young people is best left predominantly to their parents. If one starts interpreting events in history, one is bound to distort them in some way or another. By putting this measure into the Bill there is a far greater danger of damaging people's development than of creating benefit. The moment a provision goes down on paper, it will be interpreted and reinterpreted. This type of approach is so fraught with danger that it should be avoided at all costs.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord falls into a trap in ignoring history. Perhaps I may refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate. He referred to 1944 when Archbishop William Temple requested of Mr. R.A. Butler that "spiritual" be on the face of a Bill. We were in a desperate extreme in a war with a country more powerful than us, recently joined by an ally which had not yet rescued us from what looked like a terrible defeat. We were confident of victory because of our spiritual qualities. We were aware of our interdependence as individuals within the nation. Self-sacrifice was an obvious virtue. Courage was an absolute essential. There was a clear moral matrix without which we could not survive. It was perfectly reasonable then to ask that this should be recognised on the face of the Bill; and it was perfectly reasonable then that Rab Butler should ask the departing delegation, in an aside, to pray for him.
Now in 1997 we are in a world in which success is not seen as the fruit of courage, self-sacrifice and high moral endeavour. It is seen as skill in extracting benefits from the market and from society. The right reverend Prelate says that schools have difficulty deciding what spiritual means. That is an indictment of our education system, because those people are the product of earlier generations of education. If we simply accept that difficulty and say that it is irremediable, we shall accelerate down a very slippery slope into a bottomless chasm. If we are to survive as a nation worth its salt, we have to realise that self sacrifice, courage and endurance are virtues; and they are virtues not simply because they result in the survival of the country but because they are the inescapable conclusion of anyone who examines the religious basis of this country's history which is Christianity.

1549
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is poised to leap to his feet. However, perhaps he will restrain himself for a moment. He will say that this measure is in danger of becoming a bigoted enforcement of a single religious viewpoint upon the many minorities in this country. But it will not be for this reason. The amendment does not refer to Christian spirituality. The Act of Parliament under which the amendment would be interpreted is the Education Reform Act 1988. Thanks to the exertions of my noble friends, and noble friends of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the 1988 Act states that what we are teaching recognises Christianity as wholly or mainly the tradition in this country. It leaves ample scope for the local religious advisory bodies to ensure that the local curricula take account of local religious minority circumstances which in certain parts of this country are predominantly non-Christian.
I am looking only at the first word of my noble friend's amendment; namely, "spiritual". The others seem less desirable, but less essential, and simple to explain. If we ask teachers to teach children the moral and cultural background, that again answers the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because it will teach the cultural and social backgrounds of the community in which they teach.
In her amendment, my noble friend asks us to recognise virtues which are too easily brushed under the carpet and too easily silenced by those who wish to be politically correct. I hope that the Committee will support her.
6 p.m.
Lord Howell: I support the amendment and wish to comment on the noble Baroness's remarks about the relationship between schools and parents. That is the great justification for the amendment. It is the duty of parents to do much more. But unfortunately, as we all know, many parents do not accept their responsibilities in this area or indeed other areas. Therefore the question facing us is: if we do not tackle these problems in schools, even though we hope that they will be tackled in the home, in so many cases where will they be tackled at all? That is the great justification for the noble Baroness's approach.
Incidentally, I undertook some research in my old constituency—which I am sorry to say has the highest infant mortality rate in Europe—on the effect of some of these issues on single parents. I have been astonished to find that the attention of single mothers—with all their problems, living in high-rise flats, often trying to earn a living—to the spirituality of their children is probably greater than in many other areas of the city. That in some ways is a great comfort. We must not assume, as I know the noble Baroness does not assume, that the biggest problem is that of single parents. I do not find that to be the case. There is perhaps some complacency in that regard.
1550
The main point that I wish to take up, especially following the remarks by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, with which I strongly agreed, is the wording that the noble Baroness has used in her amendment,
"the religious traditions of Great Britain, which are in the main Christian".
That wording is very sensible—"in the main" Christian, but not exclusively Christian.
Again, I fall back on my experience in Birmingham to point that out. I hope that I am dealing with the right point.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is perfectly correct in his reference to the other grouping. I spoke simply to the first amendment, in which the words do not occur. I apologise for interrupting him.
Lord Howell: I am so glad to know that the referee is not offside on this occasion. I wanted to draw attention to a problem that worries me enormously. In my city, Birmingham, as I have mentioned before, in three years' time 50 per cent. of the schoolchildren will be Moslem. Some will be Hindu, some will be Sikhs, and a few will be Jewish. But the balance has changed. The challenge we face is how to deal with questions of spirituality and morality in a society with that sort of make-up. As a member of the Church of England, I do not think that we give enough attention to the problem of how we relate to each other in terms of religion. There is still a great lack of communication between the various religions.
The right reverend Prelate asked us to define "spirituality", or at least to discuss the question. I prefer the phrase "ethical studies" so far as schools are concerned. Ethical studies, which should be central to a school curriculum, can be related to each one of those religions. A great deal of common ground can be found between them. Indeed that is true of religion generally.
I support the later amendment because it uses the phrase "in the main Christian", which is a matter of fact. Religious traditions in this country are Christian; but we have to acknowledge the evolving situation and make arrangements in the schools, the Churches and society to deal with those changes. I would plead that, when these matters are discussed in schools and in churches, the ethical basis of society is the issue that is likely to hold the greater attraction.
I am pleased that, more and more, the Church has regard to ethical questions. In the church to which I am attached we formed a centre for ethical business studies. It is becoming quite revealing and produces a great deal of information from the business community about the ethical basis of its activities. This is an all-embracing question. However, its fundamental consideration has to start in the schools. That is why I am delighted that the noble Baroness tabled this amendment. It enables a few of us to make one or two points that we have wanted to make for some time.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment and very much hope that it will not be

1551
turned down on the ground that it is not necessary or that the implications are already there in the 1988 Act. It is fairly obvious that, as a society, we are in worse shape than we have been for a long time not only in regard to crime but in regard to a kind of total forgetfulness of morality. It is not sensible to say that the teaching of morality is a function of the family. As we have heard, an enormous number of families do not even possess a moral vocabulary. I was very encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elton, use the names of virtues as part of that which it is incumbent upon schools not only to teach by example but to name and to hold up as ideals for their pupils. If the schools do not do it, we shall repeatedly and increasingly be in a condition where we have no vocabulary left with which to say plainly that some things are morally wrong and other things constitute ideals.
I have some sympathy with the heads whom the right reverend Prelate came across who did not quite know what to make of the word "spiritual"—unless it means religious. Immediately we say that it means religious, we fall into the difficulty that there are numerous different faiths in one school.
I should feel perfectly happy to say to people who do not know what "spiritual" means, that they are there to teach the possibility of an ideal, a fundamental value, wherever it may come from, from whichever faith, or indeed no faith. "Spiritual" entitles someone to hold up an ideal which is absolute and which may never be attainable. If a child is presented with that idea, an enormous change for the better will come about.
I should therefore like to retain both words—"moral" and "spiritual". However, I believe that in teaching these values in schools it is important for teachers themselves to be unashamed of using deliberately moral words and not to be obsessed with moral relativism or saying that what may be right for one person may not be right for another, but to come down—if necessary, in an Aristotelian way—and talk about virtues and vices. We know that there are such things. I believe that, if the schools do not teach children that that is so, many of them will never pick up the idea and we shall continue in the wave of crime that we now find ourselves in. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: It is with pleasure that I rise to support everything said by my noble friend Lady Young. Her amendment seeks to place emphasis on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of children, including the importance of marriage and parenthood in the bringing up of families, with which I wholly agree.
The majority of marriages are for life; the majority of children live with their married natural parents. We do not read nearly enough about the successful upbringing of children; we read too much about the occasional dramatic failure. Too much emphasis is placed by the media on the statistics of failure. Marriage and parenthood are not easy responsibilities to assume. On occasion difficulties loom large in everyone's life. Careful and sympathetic preparation at school, including how to deal responsibly with problems, will give
1552
children strength to cope in their later lives. We all know of the problems of housing, finance, mortgages, hire purchase and different family customs. All those problems contribute stresses and strains to marriage. Even such humdrum decisions as who does the washing-up and who makes the bed can be the cause of great tension. If children discuss such problems openly at school under proper supervision, incorporating the principles put forward by my noble friend Lady Young, which have stood the test of time, they will later recall what they have learnt and, we hope, find permanent solutions in their own lives.
If the children of a marriage also see their parents come to an amicable solution of their problems following a disagreement, that will provide a stable basis for their upbringing and will help in their own future marriages.
As a fellow member of the Church of England, I support the emphasis placed by my noble friend Lady Young on Christianity; but I also support an ecumenical viewpoint and co-operation between different religions on spiritual development of children. A spiritual vacuum, which is the alternative, is a much more dangerous situation.
I hope that the Government will accept the principles of my noble friend's amendments and incorporate them into the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a question, but before doing so I should like to comment briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said when he linked history, religion and morality.
It is simply not possible to look back at the history of our own country, and certainly not at the history of our own continent, and say that religions were always virtuous. We have had persecution of the Jews by various Christian bodies; we have had persecution and burning of Catholics by Protestants and of Protestants by Catholics. We cannot say that just by looking at religion we shall obtain a guide for today's morality. In fact everyone who has spoken has also said that tolerance, which is a modern virtue—it was not a virtue 300 years ago, but is one of today's virtues—should be part of our moral armour. We should not always refer back to what were our basic virtues in the past. What people perceive as being important changes over time. There are a lot of things that many of us would feel are virtues; I personally think of truthfulness, courage, a generous heart and modesty. However, over time not everybody has necessarily supported the same set of virtues. Morality changes. We are all human beings and therefore our ability to interpret religion changes. That does not mean that there is not a spiritual aspect to the life of every human being that needs to be nurtured.
I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. It is important that educators take on board some of the aspects of education that she raised. I remember some years ago an education committee trying to lay down what education should be about. Some of us had to struggle to get the word "moral" back

1553
into the list because we were then talking of vocational matters. "The person" was being edged out because of the need to prepare that person for adult life.
I have a problem with the reference in the noble Baroness's later amendments to the principle of a mainly Christian approach. If I understand it correctly, this set of amendments has to do with the home-school agreements with which we were concerned earlier. Those home-school agreements are still part, or potentially part, of the admissions process of schools. I should like the noble Baroness to tell us how she thinks that will work when parents who wish their children to go to a particular school come from a wide range of different backgrounds, including non-religious people. That does not mean that those people do not have spiritual values. In today's world people can be very considerate of others and very keen to do their best for the world but be anti-religious. That must be accepted.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: Does the noble Baroness agree with the estimate of one of the most revered humanists in this Chamber—he may address us—when he told us long ago that 10 per cent. of the population was non-religious?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I cannot dispute or agree with the figure because I do not remember, but I am willing to accept that that was what was said. All I can say is that, in my experience, a considerable proportion of people are anti-religious. I am not part of that group. That is one group who might be disconcerted. A second group might be unwilling to sign the pre-admission agreement between the school and the parents. The same might be true of those who come from different religious backgrounds. How does the noble Baroness, Lady Young, see this fitting in with the rest of the Bill?
Baroness Elles: Perhaps I may say a few words in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young. It is clear that her amendment has a great deal of support in this Chamber and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept it into the Bill. Amendment No. 127 refers to "spiritual, moral, social and cultural development" and does not include the word "Christian" at all. That does not mean to say that Christian values are not included. In her later amendments she correctly points out that Christian tenets are in the main the ones that are recognised in this country. However, in the context of Clause 30 that does not lead me to say that every religious class will be dealing with Christianity. On the contrary, I believe that it is very valuable that the word "spiritual" is used rather than the word "Christian" in that it gives a wider definition of what children should expect to learn. In all the cases that I have known over the many years in which I have dealt with schools, I have seldom found that parents—even when they are non-religious or when
1554
specifically atheists—object to their children having some kind of general spiritual education in school. In fact I believe they expect it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I wonder whether she would accept that in this country there are places where people have fought to retain county schools because all the other schools for the age group in that area were religious schools. It is simply a matter of fact. I may not agree with it but it is part of the society in which we live.
Baroness Elles: I thank the noble Baroness for pointing that out. But this particular clause is a voluntary and not mandatory provision. The clause states:
"The admission arrangements for a county or voluntary school may include provisions".
It gives the opportunity to those schools which wish to include these provisions to do so. I believe that that is the right and proper way to do it. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend's amendment will be accepted by the Government.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that it seems to me—though I may be wrong—that the amendment refers to Clause 30. It simply states that schools in their statement should specify, among other things, not only the education but:
"the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development"
of the pupils. Schools could specify that it was nil. The provision does not state that there has to be spiritual development and so on. It is simply a statement.
It seems to me of the greatest importance and interest to all parents to know whether or not a school is delivering those kinds of teaching and if so what they are. This particular clause, unlike subsequent clauses, is in no way mandatory and does not tell schools what they have to do.
Lord Stallard: I can be very brief. Much of what I would have said has already been said. But I feel that it is necessary to rise in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and in support of my noble friend Lord Howell's remarks about his experience in the inner cities. I have lived in London now for 60 years, come next month. I have seen the tremendous changes that have taken place in schools, education, housing, crime and goodness knows what. Much has gone on in those years.
Those of us who can remember the atmosphere that surrounded the 1944 Education Act, and immediately afterwards when it was implemented, know that there was then a totally different atmosphere. There was a far wider acceptance of the spiritual and moral standards that prevailed in those days. An acceptance of those standards was written into that Act and encompassed everything that surrounded it.
We are now in a totally different set of circumstances. The country and society have become more secularised than it was and there are many more problems as a result. Certainly, I accept and support what the right reverend Prelate said about the need to pay attention to other

1555
religions. I do not advocate that this area is solely the province of Christians. For example, there is the understanding and acceptance of the relationship of marriage as a necessity rather than just something which happens and the emphasis on marriage as a basis for family life and for communities. Those views are shared by the people of other religions who have come to this country. Many of the views that we hold as Christians are shared by the followers of other religions, whose children go to our schools and are taught by the same teachers. That has made it much more difficult for the teachers. Gradually, through the years, religion has changed. In this country religion has meant Christianity and Christianity has implied something traditional, old-fashioned and out-of-date. As time has passed it has become a lesson which is added on to the curriculum, to be spoken about if there is time. It does not have its own space. It is not something which should first be there and then go on to embrace all the other aspects mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. If such teaching were put back on to the agenda, teachers could talk to the children. It would be understood that they must advocate marriage and a stable home.
Teachers face much opposition at the moment. We could discuss for hours the opposition they encounter from videos, television, the tabloid press and so on. The papers are full of examples from soap operas which seem to emphasise the virtues of homosexuality, drugs, and so on. All those aspects are brought in. Teachers may well try to teach one thing during the day and find that in the evening or after school the children are being taught by a different medium altogether which pushes out what they have learnt at school. I do not blame the teachers.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned training. Religious or spiritual training does not come through from some teachers, some of whom have themselves been brought up by a generation which did not believe in religion, did not understand it or came from the same background as some of the pupils of whom we have recently been speaking. There is a big problem, but it is not insurmountable. We should all speak with one voice and the people should be given a lead.
I do not criticise present company but I am saddened by the lack of a lead from the Churches. It is all very well to talk above people's heads. Much of the discussion about morality and spirituality goes way above the heads of ordinary parents. The noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches was almost right to say that we should talk to people about the meaning of tolerance and of following virtue and shunning vices. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, mentioned rights and wrongs: people understand that. That ought to be placed high on the agenda and not just be something that is mentioned in passing or if there is time or a teacher who used to go to Church can be found who is inclined to speak about it and is willing to be used as a part-time tutor, and so on. Those things have to be put back on to the agenda.
Therefore, it is necessary to accept what the noble Baroness seeks in her amendments. I understand exactly what she wants and why the amendment should be included. The amendments should be carried and then
1556
we should discuss, if we have to, how best to implement them in order to obtain what we all understand is absolutely necessary if we are to make any impact on the major problems.
Baroness O'Cathain: I rise to support this amendment and to speak very briefly. It is sad to have to make the observation that, say, 30 or 40 years ago the word "education" would automatically have included the words in the noble Baroness's amendment:
"spiritual, moral, social and cultural development".
That was a tradition that we all shared.
I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who said that we have shared traditions but in fact it is now the fashion to be religious, moral, ethical, spiritual and so on—that is not exactly what he said, but that was the inference—and we should not pander to fashion. I suggest to him that the breakdown in the spiritual, social and moral standards in this country is a fashion and not a tradition. We ought to try to make sure that we go back to the traditions of this country.
Lord Addington: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. We can always select from history examples of spiritual and moral values. At the beginning of World War One a very high proportion of the population was illegitimate. Marriage was not that common. One can go back to periods when prostitution was rife in London. One can always select examples. Whether or not one goes to church makes no difference.
Baroness O'Cathain: The noble Lord and I may have listened to the same radio programme this morning. But the shared traditions of this country are very strong. I believe that the word "education" should encompass those four requirements of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development included in the amendment.
I am sure that the whole Committee is concerned about the lack of spiritual, moral, cultural and social development in young children. When people consider all the problems that we face, they ask why we do not have that spiritual, moral, cultural or social development.
I fear it is too easy to say that it is the duty of parents. We all know the problems that parents face—we heard them graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in relation to single mothers and high-rise blocks. Parents do their best to instil those values into their children against all odds, and I am sure they are succeeding. But it should also be part of education. Once we assumed that it was part of education; now it seems that everything must be defined. The requirement should be defined in this way in the Bill. I support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My objection to the amendment is the use of the word "spiritual"—a concern expressed also in the debate by other Members of the Committee. The word "spirit" has a connotation of

1557
religious belief; indeed, it is more than that. Some of us do not believe that there is such a thing as "spirit" and therefore what the noble Baroness said is a non sequitur and should not be part of the normal education our children receive.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon spoke with his usual courage in attempting to deal with the word "spiritual". However, he did not appear to reach a conclusion, though I am sure he could convince me if we spoke about this matter outside the Chamber. My message is simple: around 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the people in this country do not have a religious belief.
The Earl of Longford: On the last occasion my noble friend told us the figure was 10 per cent. It seems to have multiplied very quickly.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I did not catch what my noble friend said. What I was about to say was that there will be disagreement about whether the figure is 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 30 per cent. What is accepted is that a substantial number of the population of this country are non-believers; they are atheists, agnostics, humanists and so forth. The Committee may be interested to know that there is a parliamentary humanist group which has no fewer than 50 members from both Houses. That seems to be an indication that there is another viewpoint. I do not deny that religion in its full sense can and does produce high standards; I am saying that there is not necessarily a connection between the two.
I want to be brief but perhaps I can remind the Committee what the clause is about. Clause 30 states:
"The admission arrangements for a county or voluntary school may include provisions"
and they are listed. If the amendment is carried the clause will include the word "spiritual", to which some of us are opposed.
Suppose the parents of a child in a school are presented with the list of requirements for admission and say, "We are not believers. We are agnostics, or atheists, non-religious and so forth. As I interpret the clause, it means that they would not be allowed to send their children to that school. That is something which must be of fundamental importance.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps he will accept that it is already a requirement on governing bodies that they should have a policy on spiritual, moral, cultural and social development. All Amendment No. 127 does is require them to publish it so that parents know what the policy is.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I was aware of that. I am also aware that three or four years ago we had a long debate as to whether or not we should include the word "Christianity" in the Act. That was agreed at that time, though some of us opposed it. But that is the law
1558
and we accept it. However, when a specific word which has a religious connotation is being included, we cannot treat it lightly.
The Earl of Longford: I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, very strongly. Years ago Rosamund Toynbee, the famous writer, wrote about her father. She said that he was "a good pagan". The noble Baroness is a "good Conservative"—not the only one, of course—in this area.
I opened a debate on moral education last November and, if anyone wants my views, they are set out succinctly in the Official Report. One can look at this argument from two standpoints. First, one can consider the kind of education one would like to see adopted throughout schools in this country; secondly, one can consider the kind of education one might reasonably expect the Government to ensure.
I speak unequivocally as a Christian. I am not one of those who thinks that Christian ethics are much the same as others. Of course there are wonderful Christians, like my noble friend here. However, I understand that she was baptised a Catholic and may well look down on converts like myself. We also have wonderful humanists, like others who have spoken; they are wonderful people.
I worked as bottle washer for Lord Beveridge for three years. He made wonderful plans for the welfare state and for humanity. At the end of his life, in 1961, we had a debate in the House on Christian unity in which Lord Beveridge took part and spoke up for Christian unity. I said to him at tea afterwards—I always called him "Master" because he was the Master of University College—"Master, I am glad to see that you came out as a Christian. What denomination do you belong to?" He paused and then I said, "When I was at school, if you could not get a boy into a house, you put him down on the general list. Put me down on the general list". Today I ask the Committee to put education on the general Christian list; I am certainly not speaking on behalf of only one denomination.
In relation to Christian ethics, no one can deny that the ideas of humility and forgiveness were introduced by Jesus Christ. They are distinctive Christian virtues, though they were adopted and adapted by other faiths. One cannot imagine a Christian community today persecuting Salman Rushdie. There are therefore differences of ethics between different religions.
I speak unequivocally as a Christian. It is strange that people do not like to mention their Christian beliefs— I think for two reasons. First, they fear it may be boastful; that it may be thought they are claiming to be better than other people. Secondly, people in this country do not like talking about that which is most sacred to them. That is why even very good Christians do not mention the word "Christian". As I say, I speak unequivocally as a Christian.
Does that mean that one is entitled to ask the Government about Christianity? I am sorry that the number of humanists appears to have been multiplied since we last debated the issue. I remember the figure of 10 per cent. well because I quoted it myself in

1559
the debate I opened in November; it has now risen to 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. though I have no reason to believe that the humanists are increasing. At the beginning of this century the Bloomsbury set were high-minded humanists. I do not believe that there is anything in the world today equivalent to the Bloomsbury set.
One must face the fact that this is primarily a Christian country with a small proportion of humanists—about as many humanists as there are Roman Catholics. As I quoted in the last debate, 3.7 per cent. of the population belong to other religions. This is primarily a Christian country. "Christianity" was installed in the Act of 1988 on the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I hope that that promise will be fulfilled tonight.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I can point out that the noble Earl combined the word "spirituality" specifically with the Christian faith. But surely spirituality is part of any faith; even a humanist has some feeling of good or ill. It must have some connotation of spirituality about it.
Spirituality is an aspiration and it may be that many of those who aspire to the Christian faith, as I do, still regard it as an aspiration. As an aspiration and an aim spirituality is an important goal for young children. The sooner our teachers can get spirituality into themselves as they teach it, the better for all of us.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: At the risk of being brief and boring perhaps I can recall the Committee to Amendment No. 127. I am sympathetic to the view of the noble Baroness; but this amendment would require schools to state in home partnership documents not only what the school intends to do about the education of children admitted to the school, but also about the children's,
"spiritual, moral, social and cultural development".
The phrase originates from the School Inspections Act 1996, Section 10(5)(d) which says that registered inspectors conducting an inspection have to report on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school. The phrase was added to the original legislation following pressure from Back-Bench peers, although it was a government amendment in 1992. That formula was devised for registered inspectors carrying out inspections. I do not think it necessarily translates easily to what schools might wish to put into a partnership document. It might be better if parents were directed to the general duties in respect of the school curriculum which are found in Section 351 of the Education Act, for instance.
Generally, Amendment No. 127 has difficulties because it makes an additional requirement to the already difficult burdens that schools will have in meeting other government education legislation. Let me point to just three things. First, we live in a multi-faith society. Moslems, Hindus and Sikhs might very well have difficulties in signing up to a home school partnership which included terms of this kind.
1560
Secondly, people whose ideals of morality are not religious would certainly have difficulty in signing up to this kind of document, and that might well affect the way in which their children were treated. The noble Baroness referred to the moral and spiritual consensus which lasted from the Middle Ages until Victorian England, and how true it was that it did. However, it does not apply now: it is all in pieces, all coherence gone, as John Donne put it.
Thirdly, this has not been discussed, so far as I know, with head teachers or governors. It could be used as part of the admissions procedure to a school, and it is in such a sensitive area and it is so big an issue that the home school contract is just too small a room for it to be contained.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 196 to 200, may I put on the record the other technical difficulties which get in the way of my sympathy. These amendments require the local education authority, in Amendment No. 196, county controlled and maintained special school bodies in Amendment No. 197, head teachers of county controlled and maintained special schools in Amendment No. 198, governing bodies and teachers of aided and special agreement schools in Amendment No. 199 and grant-maintained schools in Amendment No. 200, to exercise their functions to promote the spiritual and moral development of pupils. Amendment No. 199 would appear to me to restrict the responsibilities of aided schools in respect of religious education. Amendment No. 135 inserts a similar formulation to what schools state they will do for pupils through home school partnerships, and that is why they come together.
I wonder whether they are not present already through the general duty on the school curriculum covered by Section 351 of the Education Act 1996, as we now have it, which requires schools to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils. I have difficulties in fitting all these things together, and for those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness will not press this to a Division tonight. We must give the Government time and opportunity to reflect on the significance and the technical difficulties which these wholly admirable amendments, for which I have great sympathy, present.
Lord Henley: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on one thing and, I suspect, as always, on one thing only: that is the primary role of parents in terms of the spiritual and moral development of their children. It is always important to remember that primary role where there are parents so to exercise these functions. However, I also fully share my noble friend's views that schools have an important role to play in promoting the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of their pupils.
That is why, like my noble friend and also like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on behalf of the Government I would like to make it clear that we recognise that Section 351 of the 1996 Act requires local education authorities and the school governing bodies, together with head teachers, to ensure that the curriculums of their schools promote the spiritual, moral, cultural,

1561
mental and physical development of pupils at the school and in society and prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. I believe that the reference to schools discharging their general responsibilities in connection with the education of children in the school can already cover all those things.
However, talking particularly about Amendment No. 127, I believe that when it comes to home school partnerships, the partnership documents and how they should be used, these should be matters for the admission authorities to decide what they want to include in their documents. I think I said earlier that I, for one, would not want to be prescriptive about that. Our proposals merely seek to set out a general framework for the partnership document, and it is right that decisions of coverage and points of fine detail should be decided at local level, no doubt bearing in mind Section 351 of the 1996 Act, as quoted by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
Parents will be aware of the school's position and the action it proposes to take for the promotion of its pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, as the schools are required to list that in their school prospectus. They have to have a statement on the ethos and values and such matters, and there is no reason why parents should not know what is going on.
Perhaps I might also very briefly follow on from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and say a word or two about the amendments to which my noble friend also spoke, Nos. 196 to 200. The effects of those amendments would be to bring these considerations within the scope of the secular curriculum, which I suspect is not something that my noble friend was necessarily trying to do. As happens already in denominational schools, the parents who choose a non-denominational education in a county school have a right to expect that the secular curriculum—for example, in ancient history or in science—will be precisely that: it will be secular.
I have now twice repeated the provisions of Section 351 of the 1996 Act and I think they go a long way towards providing exactly what it is that my noble friend is so committed to. Indeed, that is what so many of your Lordships on all sides of the Committee are committed to—that schools, as well as parents, play their part in encouraging the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of the pupils that they are responsible for. Having said that, if my noble friend would care to have further discussions with me between now and a later stage of the Bill, I am prepared to consider that. I am not sure that the words she proposes actually add very much more than the words in Section 351 of the 1996 Act. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment on this occasion.
Baroness Young: We have had a useful and important discussion and I am extremely grateful to those of your Lordships who have supported me and made such valuable points. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon how very pleased I was to have his support. I believe profoundly that the role of the Churches in all of this is absolutely paramount in our society, and I was encouraged by what he had to
1562
say. May I also say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Elton. He is right to draw to our attention the fact that a great many words have gone out of the British vocabulary: "duty", "honour", "self-sacrifice" and "endurance". Use them in some places and people have no idea what you are talking about. We have simply forgotten what they are and what they stand for.
I was also particularly interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, had to say, and I will read carefully in Hansard her extraordinarily interesting speech. She was so right to say that teachers should not be afraid to use moral words. Let us face it, some things are right and some things are wrong. When the noble Earl, Lord Longford, introduced a debate on the subject, I said that I should have thought that we could all agree that bullying, cheating and stealing were wrong—I did not think that that was a matter for debate—so why should we not say that they are wrong? Furthermore, one could add to the list. Those who have responsibility for children should not be afraid to say such things.
I thank also my noble friend Lady Platt and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who has been a great supporter on such issues on many occasions in the past. The noble Lord was right to draw our attention to the Education Act 1944 and the general agreement which preceded it. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, who made the important point that "education" should encompass spiritual and moral education.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, spoke movingly about his experiences in his former constituency. I assure him that I am not in the least bit interested in blaming anybody. It is a worrying situation for all of us. We are all looking for a solution to a difficult issue.
I was sorry to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. Of course, there have been endless failures by Christians and by the Church in the past, but surely we are looking to the ideal, even if all of us, every day of our lives, fail to live up to the ideals in which we believe.
I was also sorry to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said. However, the noble Baroness asked me a question to which I hope that I can now give the answer. If I got the question down correctly, she asked me how I see Amendment No. 127 working in the rest of the Bill as it stands. I see the amendment as a fundamental part of the Bill because I see,
"spiritual, moral, social and cultural development".
as a fundamental part of education. Indeed, Clause 30(2) states:
"For the purposes of this section …a 'partnership document' is a statement specifying —
(a) the school's aims and values".
Let us suppose that the school's "aims and values" do not include teaching the secular curriculum; I cannot believe that that would be accepted, so why should we not include those other things that are a part of life? I believe that it was my noble friend Lady Elles who made that point very clearly and, again, I am most grateful for that. I was interested also to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, and I am glad that in principle he agrees with me.

1563
I was, of course, extremely interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister had to say. But perhaps I should conclude by saying that I do not believe that Amendment No. 127 would affect admission arrangements. I believe that it would only strengthen them. It would send out a very clear signal that I believe we should send out in this muddled and confused society in which we live.
The amendment would help to ensure that the values that schools seek to promote take account of our mainly Christian religious tradition. On this difficult point, it is interesting to note that British Social Attitudes found that only 3.6 per cent. of the population adhere to a non-Christian faith, whereas other surveys—and many have been carried out—consistently show that between 70 and 80 per cent. of the population describe themselves as "Christian". Of course, the extent to which they are practising Christians is another matter, but that is how they describe themselves.
In conclusion, this is a most important issue. It will not go away and even if this amendment is not accepted, I am certain that Parliament will return to it time and again until its importance is recognised. However, in view of the offer made by my noble friend the Minister of further discussions on the matter, I shall not seek to press the amendment today. I hope that we can come to some useful agreement between this stage and Report stage. In the meantime, while thanking all those who have supported me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 127A to 127C not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 27, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) Every partnership document shall be deemed to include the following provisions—

(a) that its terms may be revised at any time if, in the opinion of the head teacher of the school, that is necessary in consequence of the child's academic performance or the child's behaviour; and

(b) that if the child is excluded from the school the head teacher may require its revision as a condition of readmitting the child to the school.").

The right reverend Prelate said: We have had a debate with high moral content and the amendments to which I now speak—Amendments Nos. 128 and 130—might seem to be a descent from that high moral plateau to a more mundane issue. Nevertheless, they address the profoundly moral issue of how to respond to disruptive pupils. Like many moral matters, there are no easy black and white answers. There is a moral tension here: on the one hand, there is a need to pay regard to the worth and future of the individual pupil while, on the other hand, there is a need to have regard to the community of the school and the effect that that individual may be having on the education of others in the school.
There has been some debate about the partnership document playing a role in admissions. The amendments are an attempt to lift the partnership document out of
1564
the context of admissions and place it in a fresh context. Perhaps I should add that, irrespective of whether the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to remove subsection (1) of Clause 30 had been successful, Amendment No. 128 would still have stood because Clause 30(2) specifies a "partnership document" and it is to such a document that my amendment refers. Therefore, I hope that, whatever views there may be about the use of the partnership document in the context of admissions, noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will be willing to reflect on the significance of this amendment in placing the partnership document in a different contexts. Indeed, there are two contexts.
I refer first to the position that may arise when a crisis is beginning to loom—that is, when it becomes necessary in consequence of a child's academic performance or behaviour to consider how best that child may be helped. We are all saying that the partnership between parents and school is of enormous significance. I warmed particularly to the comments on that made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in relation to a previous amendment. I believe this profoundly. I accept that there may be parents who for one reason or another—perhaps because of parental inadequacy—may be unable to provide the support which is necessary, but in many cases that is not so. When situations are beginning to become difficult, it seems right—indeed, it is normally the case—that a school will consult the parents and work with them in order to bring about a change in the pupil's behaviour or attitudes.
Is it not a strength that revision of the partnership document should be part of that negotiation? It would mean that instead of being a general document, applicable only to those pupils wanting admission to a school, the partnership document could be deemed usable where negotiations with regard to a particular pupil were required. In the context of a child who has been excluded from school for a period, such negotiations could be part of the process of readmission.
If the amendments are accepted, they will allow schools to take into account the response of parents in determining their attitude and actions both in relation to the original exclusion and in relation to readmission. If an appeals procedure were to be invoked, the fact that a partnership document had been revised could be part of the evidence taken into account during that appeal. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take some interest in Amendment No. 128 and that he may possibly warm to it. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may press the right reverend Prelate for further explanation of the amendment. It was not our understanding that the home-school agreement was an individual document child by child. Having said that, many schools have very successfully negotiated two different kinds of document. One is an agreement with parents as to how to deal with a particular problem when it arises—for example, when a child is falling down academically or is being disruptive. Obviously, the child and the parents will

1565
have their attention drawn to the home-school agreement. To start adding to this particular mechanism may create enormous difficulties and problems.
With regard to academic performance, one of the most successful projects is the record of achievements that is used successfully in many schools. It deals specifically with those years which for some parents, perhaps many, can be very difficult—say, the ages between 13 and 16. It deals with it by producing records of what the pupil can achieve. However, we have difficulty in seeing how that can be attached to this particular procedure because it may lead to confusion.
I have a general concern about the assumption that is increasingly being made in this debate that there are good parents and parents who are inadequate and who need to be cajoled, nay bullied on occasions, or trained—perhaps that is a better word—to behave properly. It is my experience over many years of contact with a very large number of schools that we are ignoring a totally different group of parents. I refer to children who are the sole carers of parents who are in need of care at home. I refer to parents with alcohol and drug-related problems or parents, possibly single parents, who are being treated at home for severe mental illness. I worry about taking the whole of the home-school agreement into that sensitive area.
The work that schools do is often very good. We on these Benches agree with the proposal that underlies the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. However, we need to be convinced that this is the way to achieve that very worthy end.
Lord Henley: Obviously, it is for the right reverend Prelate to respond in his own way to the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. Perhaps I may make one or two general points that will assist both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness. Strictly speaking, the Clause 30 home-school partnership documents and associated parental declarations have no legal life outside the admissions process, and the question of renegotiation of such documents does not arise. As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, put it, such documents are intended as statements of general principles, not individualised documents for individual pupils. They set out what the school will endeavour to provide for every child and what it in turn expects of every parent.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps the Minister can clarify one matter. Is the Minister saying that virtually the sole purpose of the home-school contract is for the purpose of admissions, or that it is to be used at the time of admission and at no other time?
Lord Henley: Their sole purpose is not for admissions. I believe that most of us take the view that they are important in their own right. They are not matters to be considered simply at the point of admission and then forgotten. Their legal life outside the admissions process is the important matter to get right. They are intended as a statement of general principle—
1566
I believe that that was the matter about which the noble Baroness was concerned—and not matters that are peculiar to particular children.
In essence, the position after admission would be no different from what it is now, where parents, after their child has taken up a place, may be asked to sign voluntarily such a document that may be personalised to take account of the circumstances of the individual child. The noble Baroness asked whether it could be used as some form of mechanism or condition of reinstatement in the case of an excluded child, as I believe is the intention of the second amendment of the right reverend Prelate. I believe that here the right reverend Prelate has in mind something other than the Clause 30 home-school partnership. Having said that, obviously there is nothing to prevent a school from asking parents to sign an individualised form of home-school agreement as a condition of reinstating an excluded child, provided that its contents are reasonable. But if the parents refuse to sign, and consequently the LEA or governing body decline to direct the head to reinstate the child who has been permanently excluded, the parents will have the right of appeal to the independent committee, which may still direct unconditional reinstatement of the child.
What the right reverend Prelate seeks is perhaps not appropriate for what may be called Clause 30 home-school partnership documents. I do not think that they would necessarily be the right way forward either. But I hope that the right reverend Prelate accepts, as both I and the party opposite accept, that they serve a very strong purpose in their own right and they are important in that respect.
Baroness Warnock: Before the noble Lord sits down, I seek clarification. I have become rather muddled as to whether the home-school agreement is general or particular. Although it may set out the general policy of the school, what the school expects of the parents and what it promises to do, each parent will sign it on behalf of a particular child. It may be that one would feel unable to make this particular promise about the particular child. How do I know that I can control him or get him to go to school? I thought that this document was made with reference to a particular parent and for his particular child or children, but perhaps I am wrong.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness has misunderstood it. The documents are intended as statements of general principle setting out what the school will endeavour to provide for every child and what the school in turn expects of every parent. It may be that the school will, quite rightly, expect the child to turn up every day. Obviously, it will be particularised to the extent that it will be signed by the particular parents, but it is a general statement of principles.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask a further question. It seems

1567
to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, raises an extremely important point about certain parents, particularly single parents, who may for one reason or another be inadequate or find very great difficulty in fulfilling the conditions of the partnership document. Is there any possibility that the child of such parents may be regarded as a child in need and the social services department or the local education authority may assume some of the responsibilities of the parents?
Lord Henley: Obviously, if the child was formally in care they would be the appropriate authorities to make such a decision. If the child was not in care and its parents fell into the category spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I am sure that, as we discussed earlier in considering the interaction between social services, the LEA and so on, that would be something that they should take into account. I am sure that in developing their proposals for such a home school partnership such possibilities—sadly they are rather frequent—should be taken into account. But in the end it must be the parent. As always, I should not want to undermine the role of that parent.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I have a similar question to that asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I am a little confused, and I apologise if it involves repetition. The House of Lords Library notes on the Bill state, "The clause allows"—that is, Clause 30:
"for LEA schools to use home school agreements as part of their admission arrangements and to refuse a pupil whose parents have refused to sign the agreement".
In his reply to that I think the Minister said that the parents would have a right of appeal to the independent commission. But if we take that sentence at its face value, it means all of the agreement. As I made clear in a contribution to an earlier debate on another amendment that is in need of clarification.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that that is the case. As I made clear earlier, and as I have made clear on this amendment, they can be used as part of the general admissions process. If parents are not prepared to sign them, well then it is open to the school, even when they have surplus places, to say that they do not wish to take that child.
Lord Dormand of Easington: With great respect, and I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful, that does not answer the point which we have both made. To put it bluntly, does it mean that part of the document may be agreed, or not? That is the point we dealt with.
Lord Henley: I do not know what the noble Lord does when he signs a document, but normally when one
1568
signs a document—insurance, or whatever—one signs the whole document. One cannot sign part of a document and then suggest that one has agreed partially.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Or one does not sign at all. The Minister could not have given a better example, because I had to sign a document today. I refused to sign it because of a certain figure on it.
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord refuses to sign, or if the parents—as I made clear—refuse to sign, it is open to the school to consider that as part of the admissions process.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister sits down, the most recent exchange has demonstrated the grave concern we feel that this home school agreement should be used in any way as part of an admissions process. It would appear to us on these Benches, and to other Members of the Committee, that for a government who have espoused the cause of parental choice, to bring in a mechanism which may allow schools to create a home school document which some of the parents in their catchment area find unacceptable, and then to be able to exclude them from school on those grounds, is dangerous. Perhaps more worrying than that, it is a denial of the advantages of the home school agreement in principle, because once it becomes a matter of coercion—we must keep putting this on the record—it is no longer an agreement.
The document may have been agreed by a group of parents, or the majority of the parents, in a set of circumstances, but in no way can it be called an agreement if a parent is told, "You either sign, or your child does not get the place". That is anathema to anyone who has watched with pride and pleasure the development of the home school agreement. To turn it into a mechanism for turning away children is wrong.
Secondly, the concern is that by making it such a rigid pre-admission agreement, there is a danger of it being used, wittingly or unwittingly, against certain parents. I think of the cases of children I met in Lancashire where I chaired the education committee. They were young children going into secondary school for the first time. They lived at home with a parent in advanced stages of an illness who was not able to read or sign anything. The child was the carer.
Of course a reasonable governing body or head teacher will take into account the fact that that parent is unable to sign, when they discover all the circumstances. School places will quickly be filled with those who sign readily, quickly and on the right day, and some people will quickly be denied their rights.
The Government have done what they have sadly done on so many occasions with education legislation: they have taken home school agreements which have been a brilliant—where they have occurred

1569
imaginative, and innovative process, and then sat in Whitehall and tried to legislate to impose them on all schools in the country.
Lord Henley: We have just debated an amendment upon which the noble Baroness was defeated, where the noble Baroness was trying to impose it on every school in the country. That is not what we are trying to do.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It was to enable schools to use it to exclude pupils from the school. There are things which are necessary if there is to be an agreement. On these Benches we would not start from here. If the Government are determined to impose the agreement as an admissions procedure we shall seek to amend it. The words used by the Minister tonight give grave cause for concern.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may come back just once again. I have said nothing different from what I said on an earlier amendment moved by the noble Baroness upon which the Committee divided and came to a firm conclusion. In that amendment, the noble Baroness and her noble friends were seeking to impose a duty on local authorities to have such a home school policy in all schools, but not to allow them to make use of them in the admission process. All we are saying is that we believe it is for the schools to decide whether to have such a policy. We should like to see many more, although I believe the vast majority of schools have such a policy, but in addition—it is clear in Clause 30—then to use them as part of the admission process should they so wish.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister sits down, did I hear him say that he thought that most schools had a policy for some sort of home school arrangement which they could use to exclude people coming into the school?
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness did not hear me correctly. Most schools have some sort of home school policy. I did not say that they would use that as part of the admission process. What I am saying is that Clause 30 gives them the power to do so, and just that.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My attempt to lift the partnership document out of the context of admission has obviously failed totally. That no doubt indicates where emotions in this place lie at the moment. I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate, particularly those who paid attention to the thrust of the amendments. I am glad that there has been such a warm reception for the principle which lies behind the amendment.
I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about those parents who might, for one reason or another, be in need of some kind of care. I had a recent experience when I went into a home in Leeds. A single black mother had two children. She was partially deaf. As a result of that, when her children came back from school—I was present in the home
1570
when they did—they were unable to communicate to her their sense of freshness and interest in the work that they had been doing. Because I was in the house, they did so to me. I found it a moving experience. I wonder what would have happened had I not been there. They would have come back, and they would not have had the kind of encouragement and support for which they might have looked. It was no one's fault that that was the case, but it inevitably happened. I do not have any easy answers. I am sure that the schools are aware of the home circumstances of their children and will find ways of working with such families. I agree that it is a point of great importance.
I do not believe that I heard any Member of the Committee say that an amendment with the intentions of mine should not be enshrined in statute somewhere. I did hear objection to linking it to this particular partnership document.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I understand that my amendment would mean a shift. The partnership document as at present in the Bill would be a general document to which each individual parent would be required to assent. My amendment would require it to be a matter of agreement and negotiation between a school and a family. I accept that that is a change in the intention of the partnership document.
I have listened carefully to the debate and I shall read what the Minister has said. It may be that we shall wish to find a way of expressing our concerns, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 128A to 128C not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that we reconvene as a Committee no earlier than 8.20 p.m.
House resumed.

Design
7.21 p.m.
Lord Palumbo Lord Palumbo rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage industry to recognise and make full use of the wealth of talent available in this country in matters of design; and what steps they are taking to discourage such talent from seeking employment abroad.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Design Museum, the brainchild of Sir Terence Conran, who has done as much as any man in this country to further design. Next, in putting this Question, I hoped that it might be helpful to the House to be able to consider the importance of design in shaping the environment we inhabit, the products we use, the communications we make, the national talent we encourage and the wealth we generate.
The fact is that design touches the lives of every man, woman and child in this country, and indeed the world, every single day of their lives. There are many definitions of design. One I particularly enjoy is that of Le Corbusier, "Intelligence made visible", counterpointed by one I equally enjoy of Jimmy Knapp,
"Design is the creative force by which we realise our hopes for a better environment".
Design is about the planning of man-made things, the reconciliation of practical needs and aesthetic taste. Where it is recognised and understood, the benefits are striking.
My purpose in raising this Question is to concentrate upon the necessity to encourage good design and open up a debate about it. My Question seeks both to ask Her Majesty's Government how industry and every aspect of our society is encouraged to make full use of the talent available, and what steps are being taken to be sure that such talent flourishes here. That is in no way to discourage our designers from seeking experience and spreading their influence elsewhere, but let us aim to be sure that the fulfilment of that talent takes place here. Once done, that talent can in its maturity, spread the excellence of our talented designers world-wide.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the successes of the last century: the railways in South America; shipping in Japan. Invariably it was a Scottish engineer who was responsible. British designers nowadays are like the itinerant philosopher-soldiers of the Middle Ages, ranging the globe from court to court. Two of Paris's oldest established fashion houses now star young Englishmen. Volvo's chief designer is not a Swede, but a Briton. We have more expertise in advertising and graphics than any other country anywhere. Like the Scottish engineers of yore, British designers are fundamental to international industry and commerce. Britain once led the world in promoting design. The Great Exhibition of 1851 was a highly profitable showcase for British manufacturers demonstrating their astonishing attainments; demonstrating, too, the powerful confidence of our Victorian forebears, to which, incidentally, this magnificent Chamber bears witness. I should like to think that we could, in the year 2001, create a like exhibition to celebrate our contemporary achievements.
In analysing the Question that is put in this debate, perhaps I may now urge upon your Lordships the following matters. First, design is a global industry in which the United Kingdom is a world leader. Secondly, the design consultancy market in the United Kingdom is larger than in any other European country. There are around 3,000 British companies employing 40,000 to 50,000 designers. Much of the growth in the United Kingdom is fuelled by the expansion in corporate identity, packaging, publishing, retail and leisure design. We should be proud that the United Kingdom design industry makes an enormous contribution to invisible exports. The design consultancies in the United Kingdom are increasingly developing interests abroad. The response is a demand for that British design which has established so high a reputation.
However, I would suggest that businesses in this country can make much greater use of our country's design resource, and every effort must be made to focus that aim. The effective use of design is fundamental to the creation of innovative projects, processes and services. It is amply demonstrated that good design adds significantly to the value of projects, leads to growth in sales and enables both the exploitation of new markets and the consolidation of existing ones.
The Design Council has created a voluntary network of designers under the title "Designer Links" to ensure that design counsellors can bring their special skills to the companies open to the effect of good design. Above all it is essential to have the designer involved in the early stages.
What of Britain's image abroad? That image is critical to the long-term success and promotion of exports, tourism, and the attraction of inward investment. The overwhelming majority of companies in the United Kingdom assert that national image directly influences their purchasing decision. "Made in the UK", is still a significant badge in the purchasing decisions of the vast majority of the world's leading companies. However, almost six out of 10 companies in the UK say they are not influenced by that label. It is evident that industry in this country fails to communicate success to the world. There is the national tendency to talk down success which only reduces the attraction of the United Kingdom as a place for investment, joint ventures or partnerships. There is an urgent need for Britain to communicate its strengths and successes more positively.
We must do everything to promote, both here and abroad, our national strengths in design and innovation. It is not a party political matter and assertions of support are to be found in the leadership of all major parties. But we must show that design makes a difference; that where that is applied, where excellence in design is insisted upon, the results are visible. There is a measurable effect upon profitability where companies differentiate themselves on the basis of three design matters: the quality of the product; superiority of service; and the product's appearance.
The Design Council, created by the Board of Trade in 1934 as a Council for Art and Industry, promoted the Design in Business Week, which last year held events in 22 different cities throughout the United Kingdom involving 39 separate organisations. This month, the Council is promoting Design in Education Week in order to raise the profile of design across the United Kingdom and focus upon all the issues to which I have alluded.
There is no doubt that we have both great opportunities and an obligation to exploit those opportunities in the shape of the astonishing resource of talent in design in this country. We should apply that talent in order to improve every aspect of the environment we inhabit—street furniture, signage, public buildings. Why should not we have the most beautiful and the most useful railway stations? Why should not items of everyday function—chairs, tables, cups—be a delight? Why should we be obliged to accept

1573
the proliferation of ghastly telephone booths and boxes that have supplanted the magnificent architect-designed red telephone box of 1924 which became a veritable symbol of Great Britain? Why should the liveries of privatised rail services be a rash of kitsch? And why should a visit to a motorway service area be such a lowering experience?
Perhaps I may suggest some practical ways in which we can grasp the opportunities that I have attempted to describe. In the public sector, the estimate of central government spending on goods and services—all of which must be designed—is around £40 billion each year. There are moves afoot to train Civil Service purchasers in how to apply good design in central government commissioning processes. That is welcome. Imagine the opportunities if there was that concentration on the imaginative possibilities in the excellence of design and equipment in every public building. Our crowded environment would be transformed; our international reputation boosted; our attraction to inward investors enhanced.
Should there not be a Minister in each department of government championing design and responsible for its application? Should not industrial and commercial companies ensure that there is upon their board a design director? I commend for your Lordships' consideration, as I have suggested already, an exhibition in the year 2001, 150 years after the Great Exhibition and 50 years after the Festival of Britain. Let us forswear our tendency to play down our talents, display our confidence in the talent that is ours in such abundance and show ourselves confident in the approaching millennium.
In putting this Question before your Lordships' House, I hope that a debate can be ignited, with a firm focus upon the effectiveness of good design, the benefits of which can be fully assessed, understood and promoted. Something as apparently slight as a single five-minute daily slot in prime-time television, describing the quality of a single design object, may do more to create awareness and promote confidence than many a debate.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a subject which is not only worthy of our attention but is of calculable importance in the shaping of the world around us; in how we see ourselves; in how we promote ourselves; and as regards the natural talent we have the privilege to enjoy.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on introducing the debate this evening. As he has rightly argued, Britain has an international pre-eminence in the field of design, appreciably ahead of its standing in other areas of industry and commerce. That pre-eminence is a source of strength and competitive advantage to other sectors which draw on that expertise.
The significance of the design industry to wealth creation in the British economy is greater than is widely appreciated and its importance for innovation and new product development is often under-estimated.
1574
I feel that I should explain how it is that a partially colour-blind, business school economist, devoid of design sense feels able to contribute to the debate. There are two reasons, one personal and one professional. The personal reason is that I am linked to the design business through marriage and, despite my best efforts, some knowledge has rubbed off. The professional reason is that two of my colleagues at the London Business School, Andrew Sentence and James Clark, of the Centre for Economic Forecasting, have recently completed a major and, I think, path-breaking research report commissioned by the Design Council on the contribution of design to the UK economy. It is based on a new and comprehensive survey of some 800 companies, undertaken through the CBI, of design activity in British manufacturing industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, mentioned two definitions of design. Perhaps I may mention another from an OECD report which suggests that:
"design is the very core of innovation, the moment when a new object is imagined, devised and shaped into prototype form".
That definition emphasises that design involves not just designers and not just those working for design consultancies but also engineers, scientists and all those including senior management and—dare I mention it?—finance directors and accountants who contribute and influence the process of innovation and new product development. It is a multi-skilled, multi-disciplinary function which is easy to get wrong but can be the key to business success.
The London Business School report which I mentioned estimates that British manufacturing industry spends about £10 billion on product development and design, rather more than 2.5 per cent. of its turnover and employing about 4.5 per cent. of the workforce. A little more than half of that takes the form of bought-in services, but nearly as much is provided by in-house design activities. Expenditure on design by manufacturing companies exceeds its R&D spend. Design makes a direct contribution to the balance of payments: about one-quarter of export earnings from consultancy activities come from design consultancies. But the indirect contribution to exports is much more significant than the direct contribution. Design-intensive industries and firms are much more active than others in export markets. Sectors which invest heavily in product development and design are those in which the UK enjoys a trade surplus.
A very important finding of the London Business School report is that design has a positive and significant impact on growth. It states that,
"devoting an additional 1% of turnover to product development and design appears to raise turnover and profits by 3–4% over 5 years".
On the whole, that impact is larger for product development and design activities carried out in-house than from bought-in design. That is possibly because good management is better able to integrate the multi-functional aspects to which I referred before of the process of new product development when it is all carried out within the firm.
The estimated impact of in-house design on growth is found to be similar to that of R&D expenditure, emphasising the importance of design alongside

1575
fundamental research and development in the process of innovation and new product development. But because of the difficulties of managing the multi-functional, multi-skill process of new product development, the effectiveness of design varies appreciably across companies. That suggests a need for management training in our business schools—and here I must declare an interest—to put much greater emphasis on the development of skills for managing the process of new product development.
So far, I have said little about the second part of the Motion to ensure that the best design skills remain here in the UK. The best way to do that is not through artificial aids or subsidies for the design sector but by the rest of industry appreciating the importance of design to new product development and innovation and to find better ways of harnessing design capabilities to those ends. The Government can help by raising awareness, perhaps by benchmarking best management practice in that area and by placing greater emphasis on the value of design spending by encouraging companies to publicise that.
However, fundamentally, it is the effective use of design capabilities which will retain the skill base here. The best outcome is for design skills to be used here so that there is no need to seek employment overseas. As I have suggested, there is a lot more that British management can do to improve its use of design skills for the benefit of the design industry, the rest of British industry and the growth performance of the economy as a whole.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, for his initiative in asking this Question about the dynamic field of British design and how it can best be encouraged in industry.
First, it may be relevant to examine how the Government can do their bit to promote British design. The Design Council tells me, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, that central government alone spend around £40 billion per year on goods and services, all of which have to be designed by someone. It points out that, wisely spent, that purchasing power can have an enormous impact on the quality of goods and services produced by companies competing for government contracts, which are also the companies competing in international markets.
Excellence of design can make an enormous difference to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a product. For example, until a few years ago, a huge 87 per cent. of Royal Mail redirection forms were filled out incorrectly, costing more than £10,000 per week to rectify. Also, the poor service reflected badly on the image of the Royal Mail. When in 1994 a new form was designed professionally, the design fee of £30,000 was recouped in only 17 days. Some £500,000 was saved in the first six months alone, with a projected saving of £3.5 million over five years. Further, the completion error rate fell to a manageable 3 per cent. It would be
1576
interesting to hear from the Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government take to monitor and continually streamline the way that they go about their own business.
The Government should be setting an example in the effective use of design, demonstrating the benefits of innovation, and encouraging the private sector to follow that example. I was encouraged to hear that 14 government departments met representatives of the Design Council on 29th January of this year and agreed on a programme of training and design championing in large organisations. I hope that that will lead to a real change in the way that design is used in central government, though that can only be achieved if the initiative has active political support from the highest levels in government and in all departments. It should perhaps be stated that design is also about improving well-being and not just prosperity. The public sector finances many things which directly affect UK citizens—such as hospitals and old people's homes. Effective design can help provide services and environments which are pleasant for the users as well as cost-effective.
What then are the benefits for industry in encouraging design? A 1991 Open University study of more than 220 manufacturing companies which undertook product, engineering or graphic design showed that 90 per cent. of implemented projects made a profit, the average pay-back period being 15 months from launch. Sales increased by an average of 41 per cent.
The term "design" includes a wide range of disciplines, from engineering, product and industrial design to fashion, textiles, graphics, interiors, exhibitions and architecture. These should not be underestimated. For example, the textile and fashion industries employ 410,000 people, and their output represents 6.1 per cent. of all manufacturing in the UK. It is exceeded in Europe only by Italy.
It should also be remembered that our skill at designing is one of the UK's greatest assets. As Sir Terence Conran put it:
"We won't make things cheaper than the Far Eastern nations, but we can make things better through design and innovation".
It is astonishing how little Britain values its own contribution in design compared to other European countries. A 1991 survey of attitudes to design among senior managers from 200 British, French and German companies showed that, by their own admission, the majority of British companies place a lower value on design than do their French or German competitors.
What is needed now is to educate industry; to see design as the all-embracing subject that it is. Every business is involved in design at some level: even the most non-design-oriented will benefit from services that designers and design consultants offer, from the best logos and presentation to the most creative ways of maximising office layout and creating a work-friendly environment.
If we are to create the right climate for designers to flourish in, there does, however, need to be a greater awareness of the benefits that good design can bring. That will only happen if it is implemented at the most

1577
fundamental level; if there is a drive to increase children's visual awareness at an early age. The benefits—pleasures—of such an education will be enormous: if people are taught to respond to design in a positive way, they will be able to take an active role in its implementation and promotion.
The Government, too, must be educated in the importance of the arts, not just culturally but also practically. No doubt the Minister will tell us how highly the arts are valued, but over the past decade or so his Government have been responsible for running down art colleges—the powerhouses of design training—and allowing the teaching of art in schools to decline.
Throughout the 1980s and the 1990s, there has been a wilful policy of downgrading the visual arts at a tertiary level, as I myself witnessed when a student at Camberwell College of Art. In my specialisation—ceramics—there was a significant decrease in the funding over several years and a forced increase of students by more than a third. As a result, we worked in a seriously cramped space, with inadequate facilities. That created a depressing and discouraging, rather than positive and productive, climate. The Government have made it quite plain that they do not rate art and design. For their own and for the country's sake, they must reverse this policy and attitude. If they do not, we will continue to create a vacuum of people who might otherwise have been tempted into taking a career in the arts and making a useful contribution to design in industry.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Currie, I, too, am an economist. I may not be colour-blind but I am sure that I do not have very great taste in these matters. I rise to speak only because when I read the Question on the Order Paper tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo—to whom we are most grateful—I had but two complaints. I should say, first, that I do not like the second half of the Question; namely,
"what steps [the Government] are taking to discourage such talent from seeking employment abroad".
I shall return to that in a moment. The only other regret that I have is that this is not a full debate. Indeed, we could have done this on Wednesday instead of the futile debate that we are to have on the subject of the economy.
I return now to the Question. Perhaps I may quote what my honourable friend the MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central, Mark Fisher, the Shadow Minister, said in a Social Market Foundation pamphlet called, Design Decisions: Improving the Effectiveness of Public Purchasing:
"It is a credit to British design training that other countries poach the best of our products. In itself this is not a matter for great concern. Many young designers come back later, and an international flow of ideas is important; but Britain has to encourage them to come back and bring with them the knowledge and excitement they have gained from their international experience. However, if people are going to work internationally, it should be through choice rather than just because they are not being picked up in Britain. There should be policies to promote British design
1578
abroad, using the Foreign Office and the British Council more positively to promote a more radical and innovative image. There is too much concentrating on heritage, rather than the creativity of British design".
I quoted that because I believe that design should be a global concept; in other words, there should be no national boundaries. It is quite true to say that we have some of the best designers. Design is not just the beautiful; it is also cost-effective. If a product is designed first, it will save a lot of money later when it will prove to be something that works.
I turn now to the case of the British Library. This matter arose in another Social Market Foundation memorandum which I read. It seems that the British Library had not been properly designed beforehand. If it had, the cost overrun would have been much less than it finally turned out to be. I do not know whether that is true, but it seems to make sense to me that by not investing properly in design beforehand, you not only get things which are ugly; you also get things which do not work. For example, much public housing is badly designed.
As I said, design is not really expensive; indeed, it is quite the most cost-efficient measure that we have. I welcome the debate sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo. However, the other day we had a debate on the possibility of having a strategic authority for London. I pointed out then that we must not forget the contribution that the Inner London Education Authority made by establishing the London Institute which brought together many art schools—and I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said in that respect from his experience as a student at the Camberwell School of Art. I believe that it is British design education which has created the stars who are right now in Paris and elsewhere. Porsche apparently has a designer team of 10, out of which six are British. That is the kind of thing of which we should be proud.
We used to be known as "the workshop of the world" but today we are "the design studio of the world". That is a good change. I say that because these are the products that are now selling; and, indeed, these are the products which bring greater advantages. They are abstract, not solid, concrete products. It is not only the question of metal bashing that we should be worried about; we should be worried about things like design which involve a lot of expertise and skills. It is not concrete and it is not something that we can actually see. As I said, it is abstract, beautiful and very profitable.
Perhaps I may conclude by adding just one more definition of design. As I said before, this comes from a Social Market Foundation memorandum written by Katharine Raymond and Marc Shaw and it quotes an Open University Study, The Benefits and Costs of Investment in Design. It says that design involves,
"creating concepts, plans and instructions, usually in response to a brief provided by a firm or client, that enable a two or three-dimensional object that did not exist previously to be made. Everything from an aircraft to wallpaper has to be designed and the design of the object is the specific configuration of elements, materials and components that give it its particular attributes of function, looks, etc., and determine how it is to be made. Design therefore affects not just non-price factors such as the product's

1579
performance, reliability, appearance, safety, ease of use etc., but if affects price factors also, through its influence on how easy the product is to manufacture and its life cycle cost to the user".
I end by posing an examination question to the Minister. Who said,
"Design is important; it is unavoidable. Everything that is made has to be designed first and the way in which it is made has to be designed too, in the process as well as the product. Many world-class British companies will well understand the benefits of using good design. Such companies should be an inspiration to us all"?
I expect an answer from the Minister.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Lawrence: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, for comprehensively introducing this Question. I should like to ask a question about three interrelated points. The first is about fashion schools; the second is about designing for industry; and the third is about the need for help and encouragement for high fashion in the home and overseas market.
First, British fashion schools are the most successful in the world. Foreign students know that with a British fashion degree they can go home and get a job easily. But for the British student life is different and hard. Whether it was a good idea to have made art and design schools universities is a moot point. The introduction of American modular and unit schemes tends to make the student a jack of all trades rather than a specialist.
The untimely demise of the CNAA has certainly had an effect as regards lowering overall standards and the overall supervision of academic standards in design education. The second point concerning young designers is that British fashion is dominated by the retailer. This has the effect that the high street shop buyer tells the designer what he wants. What is even worse, the central buyer tells the designer what he wants. That has the effect of producing goods for the largest and lowest market.
My third point concerns high fashion. This end of the market is left to designer brand names; I refer on the Continent to Armani, Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein. In order to pick up the most lucrative worldwide sales these designer names are pushed in a way that is no longer possible with high street names. In England we have a number of good, struggling high fashion designers who do exceedingly well. They receive little help from the Government but they endeavour to survive with virtually no help from the City. The fashion industry was Britain's second largest industry and is now its fifth. It seems a shame that our talented designers in the high fashion end of the industry receive so little help.
My question boils down to this: instead of designers being dominated by a nation of shopkeepers, should not the world market be offered the products of a talented group of British trained designers, with all the help, expertise and investment that the City and the Government can muster?
7.54 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I find this an almost unique debate in my experience in that I believe
1580
the first three speakers all referred to engineering. Usually it is only myself who does that, to the annoyance of everyone else. It is important to mention engineering because it is a part of design that is often overlooked.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, has initiated this debate because I was one of those who were extremely disappointed and grieved when he was unable to get his skyscraper built in the City of London. I was a little surprised that his design sensitivities permitted him to change fairly abruptly from the austere classicism of Mies van der Rohe to the exuberance—I shall not say exhibitionism—of Sir James Stirling. I am glad he is getting something built and I hope he will derive pleasure from that.
I support this Question with the same reservation that my noble friend Lord Desai has expressed; namely, that I do not believe we should discourage people from going abroad. I suppose one might consider that they would go abroad as neo-colonialists, as it were, in the design world to bring civilisation to the under-civilised world. We should not discourage them. However, that is not, of course, what the noble Lord meant. We know what he meant and we support what he meant rather than what he said.
I wish to say a few words about the nature of design because I think that is largely misunderstood in the media and even in this Chamber in the sense that the media in particular think of design in the sense of appearance and of style. We all know that that is not the whole of it. Appearance and style are part of design but they are by no means the most important part. Some designers think that they are the most important part and some of the critics of design are of the same opinion, but they are mistaken.
Industrial designers do not make that mistake; they understand quite clearly what they are about. I am not sure about graphic designers and people of that kind who are a shade on the "arty" side, but industrial designers know what they are about. They are not indifferent to style of course, and nor should they be, but they realise that the essence of design is to produce an ultimately usable product. The usable bit is the target at which they aim. A good design works and it conserves materials. It is economical and it also looks good, which is part, but only part, of the total package.
There is another point which I believe my noble friend Lord Desai mentioned; namely, there is a life cycle cost element. A good design has the qualities I have just mentioned, it looks good and lasts. The Pompidou Centre has most of those characteristics but has lasted only moderately well. No doubt it will be pulled together and it will last for a long time. I sincerely hope that it does.
What I liked about the introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, is that he mentioned two matters close to my heart. He mentioned railway engineers and Scottish railway engineers. They were not

1581
all Scottish of course; there were English ones too. The English ones comprised a fairly small number but they were good in their own way.
Noble Lords: Never!
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, there were some good English engineers. There were some Indian ones too, although not too many. That brings me to the subject I really wanted to mention; namely, the design of bridges. I think that is within the ambit of the Question. A year or so ago the report of the Royal Fine Art Commission mentioned the appearance of bridges and how they could be improved if architects were made the prime movers and the lead designers of bridges. I dissent from that a little. The Forth Bridge is not too had and an architect did not go near it. The best looking bridge in London is Waterloo Bridge. The architect's part in that has been dispensed with. His elaborate handrail was discarded in favour of the temporary handrail which was put in as an economy measure during the war. The ceremonial arches which he wished, for some architectural reason, to put at either end were also dropped. The bridge is one of the best constructions in the country. I have spoken often in this House in defence of architects. Everyone who knows me, including the young Minister who sits on the Front Bench beaming at me—we have had many exchanges on this point—will realise that. Architects tend to make a statement; and a statement is not necessarily what is wanted.
I wish to conclude merely by asking the Minister a question about which I have given quasi-notice. I do not wish him to reply tonight. I merely ask him to ponder upon it. We recognise the importance of the Design Council in design work; we have also recognised the importance of engineering in design. Under the Government's policies, how is it that the Design Council receives an annual subvention or subsidy from the Government whereas the Engineering Council has none? It does similar work although not the same. There should be an answer somewhere. I have asked a similar question several times over the years. I ask the question again. I do not expect an answer.
8 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on so enthusiastically introducing the Motion, especially just after London Fashion Week in which we have seen again what a strong tradition we have in Britain for good design. And each year at this time the question is asked: why do we not celebrate this talent, and why does it have to go abroad?
The noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, spoke of the clothing industry. He is right. The retailing of clothing in Britain is largely in the hands of half a dozen chains led by Marks & Spencer, which naturally promotes its own brands. Years ago these retailers would copy designer clothing. Today, quite rightly, they employ their own designers as well as working with known independent designers whose labels they incorporate with their own. Most importantly, they tell designers what customers want to buy, but not what to design. They also tell them to which price points they have to design.
1582
In most other countries the sale of clothing is much more fragmented, and in those markets, such as Japan, highly promoted designer labels help the retailer to sell stock. The noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, mentioned designer labels such as Armani, Yves St. Laurent and Calvin Klein. They have a large and sophisticated marketing machine to support the retailer. Others, like Benetton, set retailers up in business and give them a franchise to sell the company's products.
Designers have to find a niche in all this. The European textile manufacturing industry today largely consists of small and medium-sized, privately owned businesses that exist on quick response and flexibility through lean manufacturing and design flair. They are close to their customers, and indeed have to be logged on to their customers' computer networks. In today's business world, designing skills are, therefore, not enough. Business skills are also important. My noble friend Lord Currie touched on that.
The answer is to provide designers with some understanding of business skills. What do designers and inventors need to make a success of their talents? They need to understand their industry, commercially and technically; how to protect their intellectual property; where to go for funding; they need personal development to give them confidence to project the excitement and advantages of their designs, and to be able to sell their designs and their knowledge.
I know of only one institution offering a course covering all of those aspects. I know about the course because it is near where I live—Richmond-uponThames College. It certainly fills a need. This course does not teach people to design or invent. It teaches them what to do with their designs and inventions. Certainly much design and invention work is done in large laboratories and studios; but the argument for supporting those individuals is the same as the argument for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, on which I know the Minister is very keen.
In preparing for the debate, I spoke to the organiser of the course and discovered that the real motivation for it is environmental sustainability. If we are to stick to Agenda 21 we shall have to reinvent and redesign many things. It is already happening in the way that we design and build our new buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, touched upon that. Our medicine has to be redesigned. The way we handle and manage energy will need redesigning. Many products and processes will have to be redesigned with environmental sustainability in mind.
Perhaps this is the area where design will become most important. These products and processes have to be redesigned and reinvented remembering the needs of modern lean manufacturing and environmental sustainability.
Here I should like also to salute the work of the Design Council in making business and industry aware of precisely these needs. Their Design in Business Week, their Design Councillors in Business Links, and their benchmarking and networking have all helped to make business and the public aware of the importance not only of the way things look but also of how they are

1583
put together and how they perform. My noble friend Lord Currie and the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, told us that that attitude is the way in which successful businesses now think. They take the broader view of design.
If we have to redesign many of the things we use in everyday life, we need to keep our designers in this country. We should be honouring them, supporting them with training courses, and valuing them. That will help them to get their designs and inventions to the market on their own merits. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to tell us on how the Government plan to do that. I also look forward to the Minister being able to answer the examination question put by my noble friend Lord Desai.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, like all who contributed to this short debate, I warmly welcome it. The Government have long recognised that the better and wider use of design is fundamental to improving Britain's ability to compete in the international marketplace. Indeed, if I may say so, last Thursday evening I was at an exhibition in Bahrain of British design excellence. If I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, I should like to express my congratulations to the Design Museum upon the excellence of its organisation of that exhibition; and to congratulate those who participated, showing the quality of British design to a wide audience. And, stumbling on to an aircraft at 2.30 in the morning, I particularly welcomed the design of the new British Airways horizontal bed highlighted in the briefing for the debate given to us all by the Design Council.
Definitions of what design is are legion and I shall not attempt to add a new definition. All I will say is that design is not simply a prettying up process that can happen at the end of the development of a product.
Properly understood and used, design should be embedded in all processes that lead to the creation of goods and—I am glad that it was emphasised in the debate—of services. This fact is well understood by many world-class British companies, whether British Airways that I mentioned, or Dyson. Design permeates their culture and underpins their international success.
And yet we puzzle. Why is it that Britain produces so many world-class designers of all disciplines—the noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, was right to make that point—who operate successfully for clients all around the world and yet much of British industry seems to ignore the design talent on its own doorstep? Why is it that so many of the things we buy from abroad, be it French cars and toasters, German inhalers, or Finnish mobile phones, are actually the work of British designers?
Part of the answer is, I believe, that design is all too often seen by too many British companies as an "add-on", a costly luxury that can be dispensed with when times are hard. So the challenge is to persuade the owners and managers of our companies that design is not a luxury but an essential.
1584
Since its inception, the Design Council has done, and continues to do, much to raise awareness of design in both industry and commerce. As the noble Lord, Lord Currie, said, raising that awareness undoubtedly plays a crucial part. The council has done much to raise awareness, not only in industry and commerce, but among the general public as well. Over the years it has evolved to meet the changing needs of our nation, including the direct delivery of sound advice to companies through a regional network in England and operations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Design is important. But it is not a magic wand to solve all our problems. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Our industries need also to improve many other aspects of their performance if they and the United Kingdom are to prosper in the increasingly competitive and complex global market-place.
To encourage and help our companies to become world class is a central aim of government policy. Bringing encouragement and support to British industry in a variety of areas—quality, innovation, technology transfer, the exploitation of multi-media, financial planning, and management best practice—is as important as encouraging and supporting the effective use of design.
Until recently, the Design Council itself delivered advice and help on design issues to industry. In a sense, this tended to isolate design as a business issue. After all, why go to the Design Council for help unless you think you have a design problem?
The Government's decision to set up Business Links provided the opportunity to do two things for design—first, and for the first time, to integrate design into the delivery of a wide range of business improvement services and secondly to bring design much closer to small and medium-sized companies than the Design Council had managed to do.
All Business Links in England are required to provide design counselling services. The Government are providing funds to enable them to employ design counsellors. Today, 50 Business Link partnerships are providing design services. We expect the network to be completed in the next few months. At the same time, the Design Council has been revamped to become the high profile and proactive advocate for design. Its mission has been restated thus:
"to inspire the best use of design by the UK, in the world context, to improve prosperity and well being".
The "new" Design Council is a lean organisation which, since its relaunch in November 1994, has put in place a new team of people, new strategies and new programmes of research and development. The council operates at the national level.
The Design Council supports the work of the Business Link design counsellors and reports to the President of the Board of Trade on how effectively design services are being delivered by Business Links. The latest report, received at the turn of the year, reported that the design counselling services are working well and that their clients reported a high level of satisfaction.

1585
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked about the image of Britain overseas and how it needed to be improved. There have been some interesting studies of Britain as a brand. They inform the work of promoting Britain overseas by the DTI, the British Council and the Foreign Office. It is important to build on our traditional strengths, which bring us considerable business and exports, inward investment and tourism. However, presenting Britain as a progressive and successful industrial nation with which it is good to do business is equally important. That thought is very much at the forefront when overseas promotions such as those under the Commercial Excellence programme are being designed.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, asked why government does not use design better. Government procurement does indeed take account of design. There are a number of shining examples where design has been deployed to ensure efficiency. The brief of the Design Council includes the very interesting example of forms prepared for the Royal Mail. An excellent example of securing efficiency and value for money is that of the Ministry of Defence Abbeywood facilities. But I recognise, as does the noble Lord, that there is always room for improvement. The Design Council works with all departments across government including—dare I say it?—the Treasury.
The noble Lords, Lord Lawrence and Lord Freyberg, asked about design education in the United Kingdom. The evidence is that Britain's reputation and the reputation of individual colleges for design education remain particularly high. The courses attract high numbers of students from overseas—as many as 40 per cent. in some cases. However, again, there should be no complacency about the need to maintain and improve high standards. I look to the Design Council, the national authority for design, to alert government if there are perceived to be any problems in this area.
In the 21st century, Britain will have to make its way in the world by exploiting to the fullest all its resources of mind, ingenuity and creativity. The world has never owed anyone a living and it certainly does not do so now. And, while the world is opening up increasingly to free trade, new and hungry players are coming to the market-place. Most, and probably all, understand how important design is and send students to Britain to be educated and trained as designers or as managers of the design process.
Britain produces world class designers. That is because we are an inventive people. But it is also because we have a world class design education system. Design is included with technology in the national curriculum. Our design colleges and institutions attract students from around the world and they return to their home countries to design goods and services that we here may end up buying.
The second part of the Question related to what steps we are taking to discourage design talent from seeking employment abroad. It is very seldom that in this House we find two economists agreeing with each other. On
1586
this occasion they not only agreed with each other but had an engineer in support—an even more unusual combination. I add my agreement as well.
In the past, as will be the case in the future, talented young people will go where their talent is appreciated and rewarded. In the long run I do not consider that as necessarily being to our disbenefit. Indeed, as the economy becomes more globalised we shall probably benefit from their experience of other cultures and other design traditions when they return home, as they very frequently do. Their understanding of other cultures and traditions is important to British companies looking to design products for the international market-place.
As a number of noble Lords emphasised, what we are really trying to determine is not whether they should come and go but whether something more should be done to improve awareness of the calibre of those young designers in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that there is more to be done to create an understanding of their worth. We certainly wish to do all that we can to encourage major companies and small and medium-sized firms to appreciate design for what it is—an essential tool for business excellence and success. That is what we are trying to do, as I have sought to explain, through the work of the Design Council and with the new and improved design services at Business Links. As many noble Lords said, design is a British strength which British industry ignores at its peril. The Government remain firmly committed to encouraging and helping British companies to understand that and to exploit that talent.
I thought the quotation by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, an exceptionally apt one with which to conclude any debate. Like his excellent piece in the Sun newspaper recently, it was a quotation that might have been made by the Prime Minister himself. I believe that in answering that question I have scored 100 per cent.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.22 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.19 to 8.22 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 30.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 129:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
ASSISTANCE TO PARENTS IN ADMISSIONS
(" . A local education authority may, in respect of admissions to maintained and grant-maintained schools in its area, exercise the function of distributing information to—

(a) parents; and

(b) schools,

1587
concerning respectively the availability of places at such schools and the number and content of applications from parents in respect of such places.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is that a local education authority should act as a clearing house for admissions to secondary schools. The amendment as drafted is a little narrower than I had originally intended. I had originally intended that a local education authority should also distribute school prospectuses and other supporting information to parents who are deciding where their children should go at the secondary stage.
The amendment arises out of a plea from the heart which I received from a friend who is the head teacher of a primary school in central Battersea, which is a feeder school for what has unfortunately become one of the sink schools in Wandsworth. That is a pejorative term but it is the popular perception of that school.
My friend the head teacher spends a lot of his time explaining to parents of pupils that they should take advantage of the choice now available to them in the London Borough of Wandsworth. He encourages them to exercise choice and think of moving their children further afield. However, his impression is that many of the parents are simply overwhelmed by the amount of time it would take to exercise their choice properly and make an informed judgment about what is best for their children.
Many children go to the local school for no better reason than that it is where their elder brothers and sisters have gone and where the other children are going. The head teacher said that the one thing that would lighten the burden for parents would be to have a single port of call to obtain information and literature about the availability of school places and the types of schools available. I propose in this amendment that the LEA should be given that role. The authority is not expected to be an advocate for any particular school. The sole purpose of the amendment is that the LEA should be a clearing house and a source of information for all schools in its locality. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise formally to support this interesting amendment and look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Henley: I note that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, originally wanted a different amendment. So be it, but I think it would be better to take the amendment before us today. If he wants to bring a different amendment another time, no doubt we can look at that.
The amendment is permissive and is therefore unnecessary. There is absolutely nothing to stop LEAs acting in the way proposed if that is what the admissions authorities concerned agree to do. I therefore believe that there is no need for the noble Lord to move the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: The experience of parents in Wandsworth is that, although the local education authority may be entitled to distribute this information, they do not do it on a systematic basis and do not necessarily do it for the grant-maintained and private
1588
schools within the borough. The purpose of the amendment as I had intended it to be was to put a more systematic duty on local education authorities to make that information available to parents. I should have been more grateful if the Minister could have given some indication about the intent of the amendment as I described it in my introduction. Nevertheless at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [—Schedule inserted as Schedule 33B to the Education Act 1996]:
[Amendments Nos. 129A to 130C not moved].
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 131 to 134.
Page 66, line 13, leave out ("who is a disqualified person") and insert ("to whom sub-paragraph (3) applies").
Page 66, line 16, leave out ("the child is a disqualified person") and insert ("sub-paragraph (3) applies to the child").
Page 66, line 18, leave out from ("schools.") to ("during") in line 19 and insert ("this sub-paragraph applies to him").
Page 66, line 21, leave out ("in relation").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 131 to 134 with Amendment No. 118. I beg to move.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 135:
Before Clause 32, insert the following new clause—
EXCLUSION OF BASELINE ASSESSMENT SCHEME FROM SELECTION
(" .—(1) No baseline assessment scheme designed or adopted in accordance with sections 32 to 35 shall be used for the purposes of the selection of pupils as to school admissions whether by reference to ability or aptitude or otherwise.
(2) The duty on a school governing body to adopt a scheme under section 33(1), and the duty to assess pupils under such a scheme under section 34(1), shall be undertaken solely for the purposes for which the scheme was designed in accordance with section 32.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 135 and 137 were grouped on the first day but mentioned only briefly. Our recollection is that the Minister acknowledged that we would return to these. They are linked by subject to Amendments Nos. 139 and 141. I will speak to those when we reach them.
Amendment No. 135 is the first amendment which deals with baseline assessment and this is therefore an appropriate moment to place on record general support for the principle of baseline assessment. There is agreement across the political parties and among educationalists that the introduction of universal baseline assessment for children entering primary education is a positive development which should be supported.
The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) conducted a survey in early 1996 and found that about half of all English LEAs were involved in some form of baseline assessment and that it was well established in many schools and authorities. Reception class teachers have had an excellent record over many years of making formative assessments, finding out about the prior learning and attainment of children who are new in primary school. Information from that

1589
exercise has enabled the reception class teacher to plan his or her teaching programme, see to the educational needs of children and also provide information within the school about individual children who may need further help. What is new is that LEAs have been developing assessment instruments for all the schools in an area, so that reception class teachers use a common method of assessing pupils on entry to school. In part that has been brought about by having common assessment arrangements for children aged seven and 11 under the national curriculum.
The advantages of baseline assessment as opposed to reception class teachers carrying out their own formative assessments are that assessment materials can be esed across a number of schools and the results moderated. Common training can also be provided for teachers. Children will have a record of their learning at entry to school which can be carried on at school transfer and the assessment instrument can be used for diagnostic purposes—screening children for special needs, but not for assessing the detail of those special needs—and for value added information on the work done in school. The value added information is important as the development, for better or worse, of primary school league tables based on the achievements of 11 year-olds will mean that schools will wish to examine their performance against the achievements of pupils entering at the age of five.
We believe that the first purpose of baseline assessment means that schemes are expected to fulfil two not necessarily complementary objectives: formative diagnostic and value added. The other purpose of baseline assessment is the measurement of children's future educational achievements as referred to in the SCAA consultation document; namely, to assist with curriculum and resource planning, form part of a value added measure and aid accountability.
It is possible to speak in great detail on the issue of the way in which baseline assessments can be performed. It may well be an area to which we shall wish to return on Report. At this stage, suffice it to say that in recording a very broad measure of support for baseline assessment, there is certainly not a broad measure of support for what possibly the proposed law could enable or even plan to happen; namely, that the Government would use baseline assessment as a measure for entry tests to primary schools. If the Government are committed to preventing baseline assessments being used to create a new model of some kind of primary grammar school, we are able to support the government proposals in these areas. I await with interest the reply from the Minister. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I should first like to thank the Minister for his letter to me of 14th February after the Second Reading debate, assuring me that there has never been any intention that the information derived from baseline assessment should be used for selection purposes. He also specifically wrote about entry to primary school and made the point that children
1590
cannot be assessed until they have already entered a school in reception class. I thank him for that letter and the views it contained.
But the information could easily be used for subsequent moves of the child or for entry to junior school at the age of seven. There is also a possibility, which rather disturbs me, in Clause 34(8) of the Bill that the age at which baseline assessment takes place could be changed from what is currently proposed and that the baseline assessment could be done on children in nursery classes prior to admission to the school in the reception class. The Minister, I know, must be well aware that schools often—certainly those in London in my experience—have nurseries attached to the school which give no automatic right at all to admission to the reception class. The children have to apply again to go into the reception class from the nursery.
I suggest that if the Government are committed to preventing baseline assessments being used for any kind of selection, they should welcome this amendment and the amendments associated with it which will be moved later.
Lord Tope: I simply wish to put on record, if it needs to be put on record again, that there is indeed widespread support for baseline assessment. Certainly, my party wholeheartedly supports it. But we are quite right to be wary of its possible dangers. The Minister says—I hope he will repeat it in a moment—that there is no intention that it should be used for selection or for admission purposes. I accept that that is not the intention but I fear that it may be what will develop. We look at what is coming with test results, league tables and baseline assessment. There is a danger—I put it no more strongly—that this may be leading some schools perhaps toward introducing it as a means of selection. We are wary of that and this amendment seeks to address it.
Lord Henley: Let me first make it quite clear that we have no plans to bring in primary grammar schools, as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, suggested. Obviously, we allow the possibility for primary schools to select, if they so wish. I feel that it is very unlikely that many would do so but the power is there and was always there.
Having said that, I am grateful to noble Lords on the two Front Benches for their support for baseline assessment. This is one of those occasions on which there is general agreement from all three parties and, dare I say it, all round the House on the virtues of baseline assessment and its usefulness.
I also ought to repeat the assurance that I gave at an earlier stage—it should hardly be necessary to repeat it, as I spoke from this Dispatch Box on an earlier occasion—that we have no intention that baseline tests should be used for primary selection. In fact, that would be impossible in that baseline assessment takes place after the child has entered the school. Therefore it could not be used for selection.
However, that is not to say that it would not be possible, should a school want to go down that route—I feel that it is exceedingly unlikely and it is not a route

1591
that many schools would want to follow—that they could not use the test, should they so wish. But that is not the function of those particular tests. The function is just what it says: baseline assessment. That is what it will be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, asked whether the information could in future be used for selection by means of baseline assessment taking place at an earlier stage—she quoted from my letter—on nursery school pupils. I should like to look at that point and possibly come back to the noble Baroness in correspondence between now and another stage.
There is one last point that I should like to pick up now in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. She talked about the tests having certain functions in terms of screening for special educational needs and so on. One must be very careful about thinking that baseline assessment can play so useful a role in that field. She accepted that it was not suitable for diagnostic purposes of special educational needs and I am sure that we all agree on that. I feel that we should probably all like to say that it is not necessarily suitable for screening for special educational needs but, like the noble Baroness, I suspect that there might be occasions when it may help for that purpose to throw up some problems earlier rather than later. But the important point to remember is that it does not have a special educational needs function. There are other mechanisms in place for that. Therefore, although she recognises that it does not have a diagnostic purpose, it possibly does not even have a screening purpose, though it might help on some occasions.
Lord Addington: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can pursue his last point in relation to recognition of special educational needs. Does not the Minister agree that it might be worth considering including some form of initial warning programme into the tests? A large amount of time and money is spent and many children suffer when problems such as dyslexia are not resolved early. The Government should look at bringing in some form of test at some point.
Lord Henley: The function of the baseline assessments is different to the requirement the noble Lord is talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, knows that children can be statemented from a much earlier age—indeed, from two onwards—and it is right that that should happen. As I said, it is possible that there may be occasions when it may help a bit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said, on the screening. But that is not the function of the test.
The function of the test is to get the baseline assessment right. Other mechanisms should be in place to ensure that there is early recognition—we all recognise its importance—of special educational needs. However, I am not sure that these tests should necessarily be designed to do that. If the experts who
1592
advise us on these matters say otherwise, and one could devise them in such a way, then so be it. However, I would not want to distort the tests in that way.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was trying to express from these Benches that we recognise that there is a difference between baseline assessments and the types of testing necessary for the detailed analysis of special educational needs, notwithstanding the fact that statemented pupils who may have quite severe learning difficulties may well be identified in advance of primary school age. However, we are concerned with the 18 per cent.—often referred to as the "Warnock" children—who have special educational needs and for whom a statement is not necessary, but provision is.
My understanding of the legislation as it is drafted—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that it does not require that the baseline assessment necessarily takes place after the child has started school; it could take place earlier. Given that there is a wide degree of support within the education profession from many schools and governors because of their experience, across political parties and from those with no political affiliation, and given that the Government's stated intention is that baseline assessment should not be used in order to select pupils at primary school age, cannot the Government accept amendments that would prevent such use? Such amendments could identify the purpose of baseline assessment as being those that the Government and SCAA have stated clearly. It would be helpful if the Minister could respond, at least to say that he will take the matter away and consider it.
Lord Henley: I repeat what I said earlier. Our intention is that baseline assessment should start after admission. The noble Baroness knows that my door is always open. Of course I shall take away this matter and consider whether the drafting needs to be tighter. There may be some who believe that there are occasions when earlier baseline assessment might be possible. I can only repeat that our intention is that it should not be part of the admissions process.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I know that the Minister's door is always open. However, if it is open always to give the same answer, the open door can serve little purpose.
It is with deep concern that I record that many people will be greatly troubled by an apparent government refusal to rule out the use of baseline assessment for selection purposes. I noted the Minister's words carefully and shall read them again tomorrow in Hansard. I believe he said, "there may be some who would".
To start a system of selection by ability at primary age would patently be divisive and destructive. It is something with which we cannot possibly agree. However, I shall read the Minister's words carefully and hope that it is possible to obtain stronger support for ruling out selection at primary school age. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 32 [Introductory]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 28, line 39, leave out ("Chapter") and insert ("Part").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving Amendment No. 136, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 150. Clauses 33 to 35 relate to baseline assessments of primary school pupils. As has been said, there is widespread support for that. Clause 36 refers to performance targets. The intention of Amendment No. 136 is to link together baseline assessment and performance targets. It seeks to extend the definitions in Clause 32 to cover also Clause 36. The intention of Amendment No. 150 is to require that regulation should provide for annual targets in primary schools to be set by reference to the baseline assessment scheme for the school.
The general feeling is that baseline assessments will enable some kind of measure of what might be termed "value added" to be made. I do not believe that expectations of value added should be set low; indeed, I believe that expectations need to be high, whatever the setting of the school—it is particularly true in inner city schools. Nevertheless, it makes sense that the targets which are set under Clause 36 should bear some relation to the baseline assessments or at least should be prepared to take into account those assessments. With that brief introduction—I do not want to detain the Committee at this late hour—I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Perhaps I may speak to both Amendments Nos. 136 and 150. I found some difficulty in threading my way and wrapping my mind around those amendments. I shall be grateful if either the right reverend Prelate or the Minister will correct me if I have gone wrong.
As I understand it, baseline assessment is defined only for Chapter 1 of Part VI and, by substituting "Chapter" for "Part" the term "baseline assessment" can then be used in Chapter 2 on performance targets, which is the point of Amendment No. 136. Amendment No. 150 requires primary schools to set annual targets,
"by reference to any baseline assessment schemes adopted for the school".
One might hope that targets would be set in relation to numerical outcomes on baseline assessment schemes; that is, how many children each reach a set series of standards. Clearly, a school would not wish to set targets for the results of baseline assessments—by which I understand that schools should not themselves set the standards The net result is that the targets would be on a common basis.
If I understand that correctly, then the amendment is a probing amendment to find out whether "baseline assessment" can be used in relation to the construction of targets. Do baseline assessments count as,
"the past performance of pupils in the particular examinations or assessments"?
1594
That is a phrase used in Clause 36(2)(b). I shall be grateful for any correction or agreement that my understanding of the amendments is correct.
Lord Henley: Again, I express sympathy with Amendment No. 150—the substantive amendment following on Amendment No. 136. I believe what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed to is the problem with that specific amendment. There would be nothing wrong with using baseline assessments for the target; the trouble is that we do not intend to introduce statutory baseline assessment before September 1998.
As recommended by SCAA, there will be a nationwide pilot early this year. Obviously, children who undergo baseline assessment in six months' time will not be doing their Key Stage 1 assessments until the year 2000. It would therefore be wrong to wait until that came through to set targets for Key Stage 1 and deny pupils now in the schools the improvements that setting targets would bring. Given the delay in the instruction about targets for Key Stage 1, which Amendment No. 150 would entail, I suggest that the amendment is unwise. However, I accept the spirit behind the amendment, and good targets will be determined by reference to the starting points of the children concerned. That could include in the future baseline assessment or any other prior assessment, but obviously it cannot at the moment. To fix it on the face of the Bill at this stage in particular would be wrong. It might be something that could be addressed in a number of years' time but certainly not now. I hope that what I have said will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and that the right reverend Prelate will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: At this late hour I too have difficulty in discerning precisely the meanings of amendments, but my understanding is that Clause 36 gives a permissive power to publish targets and past performances, whereas the amendment that I am proposing would require that annual targets would be set by reference to the baseline assessment. It is a slightly different point to the one about publishing, but I am glad there has been some warmth for the principle behind this amendment. I accept what the noble Lord the Minister says about the difficulties of timing, and in the light of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 29, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 4 and insert (""designated" means designated by the Secretary of State;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 138 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 140, 142 to 145, 161 and 172. These amendments are of a technical nature, and I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I welcome Amendment No. 138 as I have not welcomed anything for some time, for the simple reason that eight words

1595
replace 22 words. How refreshing to find that the art of précis is not dead: would that it had been extended to the rest of the Bill!
As regards Amendments Nos. 140, and 142 to 145, they allow for the possibility that there may be more than one designated body which can accredit baseline assessment schemes. I take it that this amendment is really looking at the possibility that the Welsh curriculum body would approve baseline assessments in addition to the English body. As regards Amendments Nos. 161 and 172, these are again concerned with baseline responsibilities of QNCA and refer to the responsibilities of QNCA and the equivalent Welsh body for baseline assessment, which is why they are grouped with Amendment No. 140. The Welsh body, Awdurdod Cymwysterau, Cwricwlwm ac Asesu, has an acronym, which is ACCAC and takes the place of ACAC. Both are pronounced "ACAC", as far as I can see. I have no difficulty with these amendments.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is absolutely right. He is also right in giving what I think is now the current form of pronunciation of the assessment authority for Wales. It is pronounced the same, whether it is ACAC or ACCAC. I will not follow the noble Lord in trying to emulate his Welsh.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Adoption of baseline assessment schemes]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 29, line 15, at end insert—
("(1A) A baseline assessment scheme may be so adopted if (and only if)—

(a) it enables the school to identify and meet the needs of pupils who have special educational needs without a statement; and

(b) no pupil is excluded from such an assessment on grounds of ability.").

The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I would also like to speak to Amendment No. 141. Amendment No. 139 will provide for a baseline assessment being adopted if, and only if, it enables the school to identify and meet the needs of pupils who have special needs without statement and that no pupil is excluded from such an assessment on the grounds of ability.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that baseline assessment schemes can be used to identify and meet the needs of pupils who have special educational needs. The introduction of a universal baseline assessment will enable for the first time a standardised formal evaluation of learning achievements to be made of children on entry to school. Given that a major objective of this exercise is diagnostic, the question is how can these assessments be best used to identify children with special educational needs. The draft national framework for baseline assessment published by SCAA in September 1996 requires approved baseline assessment schemes to be sufficiently detailed to identify the learning needs of individual children,
1596
including special educational needs, in order to support effective and appropriate planning for teaching and learning.
The consultation that ensued indicated that virtually all the 8,000 respondents supported such a requirement. The elements of the national framework will become the criteria determined with the approval of the Secretary of State as proposed in Clause 33(2). There were a few comments about using baseline assessment schemes for the identification of children with special educational needs. This was an area that we touched on in discussing Amendment No. 135.
Obviously, there are problems that need to be overcome. The Council for Disabled Children noted that it may categorise children and lower expectations, especially as the baseline assessment scheme does not reflect the very real achievement of disabled pupils. Authorities such as Hammersmith and Fulham recorded that schemes which provide diagnostic information of sufficient detail to identify learning needs for all pupils, including those with SEN, are likely to be difficult to design and would certainly result in manageability problems and inflexibility. It is because of these problems that the draft criteria of the baseline assessment schemes published by SCAA on the 4th February—the consultation ends in mid-March—give further thought to how the baseline assessment should relate to the assessment of children with special educational needs.
It is accepted that there must be an effective link to the procedures developed under the DfE's code of practice for the assessment and identification of children with special educational needs. It cannot be a formal part of the process without a revision of the code. It is recognised that most baseline assessment schemes will not provide sufficiently detailed assessments to place a child on stage one of the assessment procedure, but viable information will be provided which may lead to the identification of some children's special educational needs.
It is expected that accredited schemes will have to provide guidance on how the results will relate to the assessment procedures, such as requiring a review of progress after a term at school. This approach could use baseline assessment not so much as a means of identifying children with special needs but as a means of providing initial screening of children with special needs. The amendment is raising with government the issue of what parliamentary scrutiny there will be over the approved criteria for accrediting baseline assessment schemes. The assessment arrangements at Key Stages 1 to 3 have to be made by statutory instrument, which, while not subject to the negative resolution procedure, as a statutory instrument, is readily available to Parliament. Clause 33(2) provides for the criteria to be approved by the Secretary of State and presumably published by a designated body. Can the Minister say how the relationship between the criteria for baseline assessment and the identification of special educational needs can be assured if this amendment is not passed into the legislation?
I spoke earlier to the issues covered by Amendment No. 141 which deals with the question of the sole purpose and function of baseline assessment. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: As a matter of clarification, I wonder whether either the noble Baroness or the Minister can tell me whether either baseline assessment or the assessment of special educational needs—or both—cover the question of physical medical problems, such as limited hearing or limited vision, which are often undetected in young children?
Lord Henley: Such problems comprise special educational needs where they affect the educational requirements of an individual. They might therefore be taken into account.
Again, I sympathise with the spirit behind the amendment, but I do not think that it is appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. We must ensure that in due course we have got baseline assessment absolutely right.
The first objective of the proposed amendment will be achieved by the national framework in a way that has been largely welcomed by most members of the teaching profession and most SEN specialists. To undertake baseline assessment in accordance with the Bill's provisions, schools will have to adopt an accredited scheme. In order to achieve accreditation under the national framework, all baseline assessment schemes will be required to meet the criteria drawn up by SCAA or, dare I say this, by ACCAC in Wales. As the noble Baroness informed the Committee, those criteria are currently subject to consultation. That consultation will end in March. That is one very good reason why we want to be careful about how we proceed at the moment.
The criteria will require baseline assessment schemes to include guidance on how the schemes link in with more detailed assessments. The assessments might, indeed, need to be more detailed. That takes me back to what I said earlier about the assessments not necessarily always being suitable for diagnostic purposes. However, they might link in with the more detailed assessments which can identify children's special educational needs. Further, they will oblige scheme providers to offer guidance on how baseline assessments might link in with the Government's code of practice on special educational needs. At this stage, we must await advice following the consultation. We must see what the consultation turns up in terms of whether, and how, baseline assessments can pursue these ends, valid though they are.
The noble Baroness also asked about parliamentary scrutiny of such schemes. My understanding is that, as the noble Baroness put it, a statutory instrument will be required and that—again, as the noble Baroness put it, although I shall have to check this—it will not be subject to the negative procedure. However, as the noble Baroness and many noble Lords opposite know well, there are always means by which such instruments
1598
can be made a matter of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the consultation process will allow us to arrive at a consensus on these matters.
Having said all that, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that neither of her amendments is appropriate to be included on the face of the Bill. As always—I cannot repeat this often enough, although I have said it on many occasions—the guidance that we shall be offering on these matters will be subject to thorough consultation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the Minister for that detailed reply, but advise him that I noted his words carefully when he said that there are "means" of ensuring parliamentary scrutiny. I would have been even happier, however, had I heard him say that there are means that the Government will use to ensure that there is detailed and adequate scrutiny of the provisions. Although I did not hear the noble Lord say that, we shall return to the matter later because it is important that this receives proper scrutiny.
We recognise the difficulty of linking baseline assessment to detailed diagnostic testing of an individual pupil's needs, but the problem with the Government's view does not relate to those pupils who have very marked and individual special educational needs, but to those pupils to whom the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred—I am sorry that the noble Lord is no longer in his place—who may have some eyesight or hearing loss but who have neither such a marked eyesight loss nor are so profoundly deaf that that is apparent. I hope that the assessment procedures will recognise the need to remind parents of the importance of having their children checked.
Our other deep and real worry is that it would be tragic if a baseline assessment were not followed up by some assessment of the causes of a child not having achieved the same level of competency as his or her peers. I say that because the last thing that any of us would want to do is to set in place a mechanism that would somehow confirm that some children were not as able as others at the age of five. The important thing to do is to assess what children can do and then to work positively to find a way to help them. Within special educational needs, an average of 18 per cent. of children have non-statemented special needs, often called the "Warnock" children. Indeed, in some schools, it is as many as 40 per cent. of children. It is critically important that we do not allow the mistaken philosophy that a certain school has children of low potential to be developed from the statement, "This school takes in pupils whose level of attainment, as assessed by baseline assessment, is lower than that of the rest of their age cohort or is lower than average". That is our concern—not that baseline assessment is not good, but that it cannot on its own identify what is needed to raise the achievement of children who are not performing at the same level as the rest of their age group at that stage. However, I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to these points. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 29, line 17, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138. I beg to move.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Assessment of pupils in accordance with scheme]:
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Regulations for purposes of this Chapter]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 142 to 145:
Page 31. line 1, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
Page 31, line 21, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a").
Page 31, line 26, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 142 to 145 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 138.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [School performance targets]:
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 31, line 32, at end insert ("in accordance with any education development plan for its area made by the local education authority and approved by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: It cannot be stressed enough that the White Paper Self-Government for Schools states:
"Each school is responsible for its own performance. It is central to raising standards that the staff and governors of every school should feel that it is directly for them to monitor the quality of the education they provide, to identify ways of improving it, and to take the necessary action".
However, the problem that arises is what should be done if schools set targets that are too low or there is a need to make an overall improvement in the performance of schools in an area. The newspapers continue to publish LEA league tables of performance, and SCAA member John Marks has done the same for 1995 key stage tests. The national education and training targets are addressed to LEAs among other bodies. If an LEA is to be able to raise achievement levels in all its schools it will require a development plan that, among other things, will have to set targets for schools. In these circumstances it is right that schools should have targets set in accordance with the development plan. To safeguard the role of schools the plan provides for LEA development plans to be approved by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 147 and leave Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 to better minds than mine. Amendment No. 147 has as its purpose to improve the effectiveness of performance targets by introducing consultation with the local education authority before the governing body sets them. The Bill as currently drafted requires school governing bodies to set performance targets annually for the performance of
1600
pupils in national curriculum assessments at Key Stages 1 to 3 and in GCSE, GCE and GNVQ. Presumably, regulations will enable the Secretary of State to specify which schools have to produce targets. For example, do we know yet whether all special schools must have targets? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on that. Regulations can also specify how the targets must be published. They may require information about how the past performance of pupils relates to their targets. As far as I know, draft regulations have not yet been produced.
Coupled with the duty to set targets, the DtEE has commissioned SCAA to do work on the introduction of benchmarking information. Benchmarking information is not a term of art. One would like to have greater assurance as to exactly what it means. The intention appears to be that schools will be provided with an annual analysis of the most recent national curriculum assessment and examination data in the form of benchmarks. One paper produced at a high profile DfEE conference in November stated that the benchmarks would show what the best schools with similar characteristics across the whole country were already achieving. One's understanding is that "similar characteristics" means that information will be produced to indicate that, for instance, schools with a specified range of pupils having free school meals have achieved a given range in GCSE passes. For example, schools that have 25 to 30 per cent. of pupils with free school meals will be told that in the 1995 Key Stage 1 test the median school had 73 per cent. of pupils achieving level two in the reading test and that the upper quartile was 82. A school with FSM in this range might then choose the upper quartile as its target. That seems to me—I speak subject to the Ministers's correction—what that is all about.
The DfEE paper stated that SCAA would carry out consultation early in the new year. Well, we are getting a little past early in the new year now, and, so far as I know, no consultation paper has been produced.
If I were to dream and speculate upon rumours that flitter towards my ears from all sorts of unauthorised sources, I would believe, or might believe, what is widely believed—that that consultation paper has been held up by the No. 10 Policy Unit because of the use of free school meals in defining benchmarks. Free school meals are not things that the Government like to have bandied about too much too close to an election.
Mr. Forth, the Minister of State, in Committee stated that in respect of regulations:
"We are now consulting on such matters".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 14/1/97; Co1.573.]
Perhaps—dare I speculate?—Mr Forth was confusing consultation with No. 10 with public consultation.
The White Paper, Self-Government for Schools, stated the Government's view of the role of the LEA in "quality assurance". It noted:
"Each school is responsible for its own performance. It is central to raising standards that the staff and governors of every school should feel that it is directly for them to monitor the quality of the education they provide",
as my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington has already reminded us.

1601
Within that context the Government set out three main functions for LEAs which would complement the work of schools in promoting higher standards—first, direct intervention by a LEA where a school has major failings which it is unlikely to resolve by itself; secondly, working with schools in setting targets for improvement; and, thirdly, providing services to help schools carry out their own plans for improvement. The amendment would, therefore, give force to the second of those declared functions.
The White Paper suggest that LEAs can assist each school in determining its targets by analysing and circulating a wide range of information available from the national curriculum assessments and tests, performance tables, Ofsted inspection reports, the inspectorate databases, financial monitoring, and a number of other sources. If they go in for too much of that, I wonder how much time any of the schools will have for the incredible luxury of teaching the children committed to their charge. However, they will go ahead and do it because they have been told to. By that means each school will have a fair basis for assessing its current performance with schools within its own area, and will be able to determine its priorities for improvement. There is no reason why that support should be restricted to county and voluntary schools.
That admirable DfEE publication Settings Targets to Raise Standards: A Survey of Good Practice (November 1996) was an interesting document to read. If I may digress for one moment, I do so to thank the Minister for his great courtesy in sending to me before we began this Committee stage last week, a number of publications which had not come my way before and for which I am extremely grateful. I cannot claim to have given them the total attention that they should have, but I have looked through them all, and I have derived a great deal of help from some of them, and a little rethinking on my part from one or two of the others, which was obviously what the Minister intended me to do.
Setting Targets to Raise Standards describes how many LEAs have promoted school improvements, supported school self-evaluation, and raised governors' and teachers' expectations of pupils, and sometimes themselves, by providing high quality comparative information for their schools. That information helps schools to set short-term targets for improvements in the performance of pupils which are demanding but realistic in relation to their starting point.
So, LEAs are in a unique position to provide data for all the schools in their area. Surely it is one of their functions to spread that information. It takes time for the schools to read it, to assimilate it, to talk about it, to discuss it and to see how in each individual case it will be applied, but I suppose that that is the climate in which Her Majesty's Government have decided that we must all now live, at least until, if it be the right date, 1st May.
For many years most LEAs have been doing excellent work in collaboration with their schools. Amendment No. 147 would simply reinforce that relationship. Where the activity needs to be supported for both schools and
1602
the local education authority, Amendment No. 147 will encourage its further development. I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has introduced Amendment No. 147 most comprehensively. I wish to comment briefly on Amendment No. 148. Its purpose is to ensure that performance targets, once they have been set and achieved or not achieved, are reported upon in the annual report of the school.
The amendment was brought to the Committee stage in the other place but the Minister was not receptive to the idea. Can the noble Lord say what other convenient means there is of letting parents know about the school's targets and its performance against those targets if annual reports are not used?
I turn to Amendments Nos. 215 and 216. They relate to the ability of the LEAs to obtain the information that they need to fulfil their role. In order for the LEAs to help schools to set performance targets, they need information on the performance of individual pupils from which accurate school information can be constructed. Although LEAs collect and process the data for Key Stage 1 assessment for the DfEE and have always had access to GCSE and GCE results, they have not been given a role in Key Stages 2 and 3 tests and therefore have not had access as a result.
The need for LEAs to have access to results is not disputed. The White Paper, Self-Government for Schools, states:
"The LEA can help schools by analysing and circulating the wide range of information available from national curriculum assessments and tests".
LEAs have an unequivocal right to this information, using the powers in Section 165 of the Education Act. Many LEAs use those powers to obtain information on Key Stages 2 and 3 results. However, it means that each school must supply data to both the LEA and a national data collection agency commissioned by the DfEE to collate Key Stage 2 and 3 tests. It would obviously be easier if the education authority could obtain its information from that data collection agency.
The DfEE claims that Sections 408 and 537 of the Education Act 1966 prevent it asking the four GCSE examination boards or any future data collection agency to pass on data to LEAs. Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 will, it is hoped, remove whatever legal impediment exists to the smooth transfer of data to LEAs and prevent schools having to supply data twice. The efficient supply of this data to LEAs could greatly increase the effectiveness of the LEAs in setting performance targets. I shall be interested to see whether the Minister, on this occasion at least, can accept an approach which strengthens the purpose of the Bill.
Lord Henley: We have consistently made it clear that the schools are the main agents for change. In answer to the first question put by the noble Lord. Lord Morris, "schools" includes special schools. I invite him to look at Clause 36(3)(c), which mentions special schools. Responsibility for driving up standards rests with the schools. We believe that self-government in all its

1603
various forms—LMS, GM or whatever—has proved to be a success and that schools are capable of rising to that task.
Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 seek to establish a greater role for the LEAs in respect of school targets. I do not believe that that is necessary. It will be open to LEAs to provide information, support and advice to the schools which they maintain, and good LEAs already do that. However, I do not believe that that needs to be mandatory.
Self-Government for Schools set out the role for LEAs to work with their schools in setting targets for improvement. Targets are most effective when they are developed and owned by those who are responsible for achieving them. As I said earlier, that means that each school should decide what its targets should be and what action is needed to achieve them.
The part that LEAs can play is in analysing and circulating performance data to give those schools a sound evidence base for assessing their current performance by assessing themselves against other schools and deciding priorities for improvement. The LEAs can also work with schools in ensuring that they set suitably stretching targets. They will certainly wish to do that as part of their quality assurance work. They can also monitor the setting and meeting of the performance targets.
But we do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to impose extra stages which would slow down the target-setting process and remove responsibility and ownership from the school. That is exactly what Amendment No. 147 would do by requiring governing bodies to consult their LEAs before setting annual school performance targets. That would apply equally to grant-maintained schools.
Amendment No. 146 refers to the LEA's development plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State. I presume that originally that was meant to tie in with Amendment No. 180F, which is no longer part of this group of amendments. We do not accept that it would be helpful to require such plans to be made on a statutory basis, but perhaps that can be dealt with during our discussions on Amendment No. 180F.
Our priority is to foster the internal will and capacity of schools to generate their own improvement. As I have said already, the LEA has a role, but not an exclusive one, and there will be many partners, including parents, TECs and strategic fora, which have an interest in school targets.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, spoke to Amendment No. 148 which would require school targets to be published in a school's annual report to parents as specified in Section 161 and Schedule 17. The annual report is likely to prove the best vehicle for schools to communicate their annual targets to parents. But the appropriate place to specify detailed requirements is in the regulations and not in the Bill. We have committed ourselves already to wide consultation on the detail of those regulations. That consultation will give schools an opportunity to comment on how targets should be
1604
formulated in parallel with how they and past performance should be published. Other views may come forward. As always, we are reluctant to put on the face of the Bill matters which are dealt with more properly elsewhere.
Amendment No. 149 seeks to give the Secretary of State power in the regulations to require schools to publish a value added indicator of pupils' progress since admission alongside their actual results. Whether or not that is desirable, this proposal is not as yet practicable. Value added comparisons based on progress of pupils against their level of attainment on entry are not yet available at either pupil or school level across the country and across all age groups. But by creating a national framework for assessment, the Government have made it possible for schools to have value added analysis in the future. Obviously, we are not there yet and the data do not yet exist. Therefore, to amend the Bill to require such indicators would delay the establishment of school targets, and I do not believe that the Committee would wish to accept that today.
Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 relate to the collection of school performance data. I accept that that is a complex area. Certain principles are clear, on which, as I understand it, there is a degree of agreement. First, the Secretary of State needs the powers to collect school performance data from governing bodies. That power exists already and I suspect that there is no wish on either side of the Chamber to remove it. The noble Baroness now proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power also to collect individual pupil data and to pass that on as appropriate; for example, to LEAs. That would have a number of important applications in the area of school improvement; for example, in the context of target setting and value added calculations.
I understand the concern of the noble Baroness to ensure that LEAs and others have the necessary data to enable them to pursue vigorously school improvements and other policies. At the same time we must ensure that information in respect of individual pupils does not enter the public domain. I feel that the amendments as they stand would not achieve those ends. Obviously that is no criticism of the noble Baroness as we are discussing a very complex area; indeed, I do not know whether she drafted the amendments herself or whether she had some assistance in such matters. However, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendments on the understanding that I will reflect, with some degree of speed, between now and Report stage on the issue and possibly consider the matter further.
Finally, I return to the suspicions, if I may put it that way, of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who is not normally a suspicious man—indeed, he is normally the most reasonable of men—that the SCAA consultation paper is being held up. I can assure the noble Lord that his suspicions are completely and utterly unfounded. There are some very difficult issues to be resolved on how we compare schools on a like-for-like basis. There is nothing suspicious in that. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw not only his amendments but also, on this occasion, his suspicions.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I respond to that by saying that, of course, I believe every word the Minister says. However, perhaps I may ask him a few questions which have arisen from what he said so far and which I found to be of great interest. First, am I not correct in thinking that Clause 36 is permissive? The Secretary of State "may" make recommendations requiring targets. Is the Minister now confirming that there will indeed be targets required for all special schools?
Secondly, in response to the Minister's concern about the grouping of the amendments, we ought to put it on the record that the grouping is in fact correct. Indeed, Amendment No. 180F is quite separate. Thirdly, can the Minister say what information or research data have been collected by HMI or Ofsted since 1979 on the correlation between free school meals and test and external examination results in particular schools? Of course, I realise that the Minister is not likely to have the information on figures since 1979 just peeping out of his top pocket. Nevertheless, if that information could be made available, I should be quite happy to receive it by letter. I want to know whether or not poverty is relevant to school achievement. We had given warning that we would raise this issue. My noble friend Lady Farrington said on Second Reading that she would raise the matter, or at least at some other earlier stage of the Bill.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord raised three points. Of course, I recognise the fact that the clause is permissive. It is permissive for all maintained schools in this section, as subsection (3) makes clear that "maintained schools" means those that are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I should point out that paragraph (c) refers to,
"a maintained or grant-maintained special school (other than one established in a hospital)".
As regards the noble Lord's second point, he is quite right. Bulky though all my pockets are—indeed, they are full of information to pull out for the noble Lord and he saw just how many folders that I brought in for this afternoon's, this evening's and tomorrow morning's debate—I am afraid that I do not have details at hand of the research data collected by Ofsted on free school meals and performance. However, I should be more than happy in due course to write to the noble Lord on the matter. Thirdly, I understood that Amendment No. 180F was not included in this group. It just occurred to me that, as other Members of the Committee were referring to it, they might have missed the fact that we shall come to deal with that subject in due course.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may thank him for the way in which he responded to Amendments Nos. 215 and 216. I shall take his advice when we come to consider those amendments in due course.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I found the Minister's reply to my amendment rather disappointing and indeed somewhat unrealistic. It is sad that the Government continually relegate the role of LEAs. Time will prove
1606
that we on this side of the Chamber are right on most occasions. I shall have to read what the Minister said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 147 to 150 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [The Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 32, line 12, leave out ("National").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving Amendment No. 151 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169 to 171 inclusive, 173 to 175 inclusive, 178 and 206 to 214 inclusive.
In spite of that long catalogue of numbers, which I as a mathematician was delighted to enumerate, I begin with a semantic problem. I do so with some trepidation in a debate in which literary scholarship has played a prominent part. My semantic problem is a question. Does the word "national" in the title of the new body, the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority, qualify curriculum, so that it is the national curriculum authority by contrast with, shall we say, the basic curriculum authority, or does it qualify authority, so that it is a national authority dealing with the curriculum? That element of doubt raises a problem which I expressed at Second Reading. National curriculum refers only to part of the total curriculum, that part whose content is determined nationally. There are wider curricula delivered in schools and in particular there is the basic curriculum which includes religious education in addition to the national curriculum.
The religious education syllabus is determined locally—as has been made clear already in the Committee discussion—and it is not therefore part of the national curriculum. It is clear that the proposed brief of this new body includes religious education. I welcome that inclusion. The position of religious education was adversely affected for a number of years by the National Curriculum Council's unwillingness to accept responsibility for any curriculum issue beyond the national curriculum. I am glad that this new body will accept such wider responsibilities. It is right that its title should reflect beyond doubt those responsibilities. This amendment therefore proposes to drop the word "national" and to entitle the new body the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
I make no comment about the acronym nor the names by which the acronym might be spoken, which we referred to at Second Reading. I simply make the point that I have spoken to the chief executive designate who has expressed himself fully satisfied with this change. Indeed I understand that members of his staff are now using the title, as amended. I hope that none of us is making a false presumption about the favourable response of the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: Clearly the body will have responsibility for the whole school curriculum including

1607
the national curriculum, religious education and other subjects which form part of the general curriculum. Therefore I have accepted the principle behind the right reverend Prelate's amendment and I am prepared to accept the amendments in their total to show what a reasonable chap I am. I hope that that will receive general support throughout the Chamber.
I am not a mathematician but I did some counting up and I see this strikes out 23 words from the Bill which can be no bad thing. I note what the right reverend Prelate says, that those working in the new authority—as it will be under the chief executive designate—are already using the new title. I note that up to the amendment my briefing referred to QNCA; after the amendment it refers to Q(N)CA. I hope that with the agreement of the Committee I can strike out the letter in parenthesis. I hope that the Committee will support the amendments of the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am delighted at the Minster's response. In the light of an earlier exchange between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, perhaps I may declare that it is not my birthday; and that given the gap in age—I believe that it is 10 years—between the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the gap in age between the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and myself is even larger. Perhaps it is a concession to seniority which has elicited this response.
However, I am delighted. I thank the Minister and his department for the help that they have given in the matter. Indeed, the number of changes to which the Minister referred was due in large part to the help of his department. I am grateful for the response.
[Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 32, line 23, at end insert ("and for the purposes of this paragraph "education" shall include education provided in maintained schools").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 153A, I wish also to include consideration of Amendments Nos. 154 to 156A and 168F.
Amendment No. 153A requires some experience of maintained education in schools in the profile of experience of members without constraining the overall scope of the education category. I think that we shall have a bit of tugging, and to-ing and fro-ing, during the next, I hope not too many, minutes about the precise qualifications, membership, and areas of expertise and representativeness of the members of what we may now call QCA rather than QNCA—although I hope that we shall be forgiven if, in moving at fair speed, we refer to the old and discarded title by mistake.
Underlying this is a general dissatisfaction with the number of people set down for membership. As soon as the Secretary of State sets down a small number such as that provided, hackles rise. People go into spasm. They say, "There is absolutely no representation for this or that, further education, the maintained sector, the cat or
1608
the dog". Everyone has to be represented. It used to be trade unions which had to have proper representations on this, that or the other. That is one thing with which at present we do not seem to be overly concerned, although that may come.
Clause 37(4) makes provision for the membership of the QCA. Specifically it requires persons,
"to have experience of. and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education, or to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for the provision of education".
There is no indication that such a person has shown such a capacity in a maintained school, be it LEA maintained or grant maintained. In our view that is casting the net a little too wide. As the Bill stands, Clause 37(4) would accept me as a shiningly well-qualified member of the QCA—so that proves that it must be fatally inadequate.
The Minister will no doubt be able to confirm that there has always been an independent school head teacher in membership of SCAA. Currently it is Dr. Philip Evans, Headmaster, Bedford. There are four from the maintained sector. It is not easy to imagine that this present Government would not appoint someone identified with the independent schools sector to the QCA. Given all the other competing interests, could it be the case that with membership that could be as few as eight there would be no room for somebody from the maintained sector? If that was so, we would consider it to be a very undesirable situation and this amendment would ensure that there would be.
The problem is in the size of the new authority. In the other place the Government were not able to justify why it should be so small. It is worth making some comparisons to see whether there is any logic in the composition of these bodies, or whether some official somewhere simply plucked a number out of the air and said, "Well, give it a run and see who salutes it". We must speculate whether in this case the Government's left hand knew what their right hand was doing.
As I understand it, the Welsh body will be the same size as the SCAA, with 10 to 15 members. There are about 30 people involved at present in the governance of SCAA and NCVQ. Interestingly, the Scottish body, the Scottish Qualifications Authority, established under the Education (Scotland) Act 1996 provides for up to 24 members. Now Scotland is a big place, and it is rather difficult to travel around it, especially during the winter months. But I can only imagine that this decision was taken as a precaution against ice and snow. Up to 24 members is rather a lot. The Secretary of State is limited to appointing only 19 members. That was an extremely interesting little discovery. Additional members are appointed by the SQA itself. In my view that improves the chance of achieving a balanced membership representing all the relevant interests. In England, on the other hand, all the members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, and that is that. The QCA will have no say whatsoever in the matter. It will not be able to appoint anybody that it rather fancies. Why not? What is the difference?
The other problem with small bodies is that they are much more open to political manipulation. Just two political appointments on a small body can be much

1609
more effective than on a larger body. It is to be hoped that the Nolan reforms will put an end to such appointments. However, our discussion on this matter would have been relevant to the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, did not move; namely, Amendments Nos. 152 and 153.
The Minister may care to develop to our advantage the basic philosophy behind these appointments. Although there is an issue about how the authority will work with such small membership given the expanded remit of the organisation compared to each of its constituent parts. It is likely that there will be significant areas of the work of the QCA in relation to which there will not be a QCA member with any personal knowledge at all. Can the Minister explain and justify why there has been a reduction in the size of the authority? That is especially the case if there is no one with a maintained school background. As I say, this amendment attempts to rectify that situation.
A frequently made criticism of the SCAA is that it does not achieve a consensus in consultation. Without a sufficiently large authority the debates generated by consultation cannot be repeated in the membership of the authority, which leaves very little room for consensus and compromise in making final decisions. That is not a plea for the 120-plus membership of the good old Schools Council—in the days when life was different and the sun shone every day—on which every body of significance was represented. It is simply a plea for a need to consider the size of the body to do the job. Eight is much too small.
An example of the problem can be seen in last year's presidential address to the Royal Statistical Society by Professor Adrian Smith in his reference to the mathematics curriculum and SCAA's habit of consulting with representative bodies separately. He said:
"a major cause of these problems [in mathematics education] … [is]… the flawed method of planning changes in school mathematics over the past decade … there has been no representative, authoritative, continuing national forum for mathematics in the UK, bringing together mathematicians, scientists, engineers, employers and teachers. Instead, increasing power has been assumed by the bureaucrats of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA), with debate and consultation degenerating into a one-sided dialogue between the SCAA and the individual bodies, with agenda setting and decision-making controlled by a small and necessarily unrepresentative group within the SCAA".
I could not have put it better myself. It takes a good mathematician to produce some good, clear prose. Why are the Government allowing this pattern to continue in the constitution proposed for the QCA? I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 154 and 156, which are included in this group.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made the point about the importance of including those with experience of the maintained sector. These two amendments make it clear that the maintained sector includes voluntary schools and grant-maintained schools having foundation gofernors. As I said at Second
1610
Reading, about a third of all schools are Church schools. It is a very substantial provision to the maintained sector.
The amendments mirror those for the Funding Agency for Schools. Amendment No. 154 requires the appointment of persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education in these areas. Amendment No. 156 requires the Secretary of State to consult particular bodies. In relation to the Funding Agency for Schools, we are glad that the Government have observed the provisions of the earlier Bill. We have indeed been consulted about these matters. In the last round of appointments for the Funding Agency for Schools one of the nominations put forward by the Churches was accepted by the Government.
The argument is that in relation to the new body the same provision should apply. It is not necessarily the case that the Secretary of State would have to accept any outcome of a consultation. His own freedom to appoint whom he wishes would not be constrained by any names put to him, but Amendment No. 154 would require that not only the maintained sector but also the voluntary sector is taken account of.
Lord Burnham: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, whether it is not the case, in the light of Amendment No. 154, that the wording of Clause 37(4)(c)is not so wide that the amendment is quite unnecessary, particularly with reference to the last part of Clause 37(4)(c),
"or the practice of any profession"?
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I have not the remotest idea. I would need time to have a look at that and I shall, of course, do so. Perhaps the Minister may be able to enlighten me on what I think.
Lord Henley: I doubt it very much indeed. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that we are not debating the size of the authority on this occasion. In the Bill we say that something of the size of between eight and 13 is appropriate. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Butterfield proposed different figures of between 12 and 18. As I think I said to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in relation to other numbers that came up on another occasion on an earlier day, getting these figures right is not a precise science; it has to be a matter of judgment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I would not want to go back to the great Schools Council. The noble Lord tells me that the figure for that was 120; I thought it was around 100. Anyway, it was a big figure and something that would not necessarily be appropriate on these occasions.
What we want is a small strategic body that can make the appropriate decisions, but then, by means of a committee structure, can look at specialist matters—obviously it covers a whole range of different things, covering NCVQ and SCAA—and through its committee structure bring in a great many other people who will cover other matters. All those members of committees can include members who are not members of the authority. It will be up to the authority itself to consider

1611
whom it should bring on to its specialist committees and at that stage it might be more appropriate to go down a different route.
As I said, during the passage of the 1993 Act—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who quoted my words from the 1993 Act; but I shall quote myself on this occasion—when we discussed similar amendments relating to the membership of SCAA:
"If the Secretary of State were to concede on representation in one case, however worthy, it would be very difficult to draw the line on other requests from organisations and groups which have a stake in what happens in our schools".
I do not believe I could have put it better then and I shall repeat it now. Once one concedes one group for the authority, one then has to accept the argument for a great many others. I do not intend to go down the route of reserving places on QCA for any groups other than those set out in the three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 37(4): persons who have experience of education, persons who have experience in the provision of training and persons who have experience of industrial, commercial or financial matters. I believe that is appropriate.
To go further and say, "You have to have teacher trainers, LEAs, teacher unions, parents and pupils", would mean that the small businesses would demand separate representation; so would the professions, universities and trade unions. I could go on and we would have a very long list indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, would be the first to admit that. We do not believe that that would be an appropriate body to deal with these matters. We believe that a body of roughly that size would be more appropriate.
I do not know whether it would be making a political point and it might be that I have picked up things in a newspaper that were not necessarily true. But I noticed a comment to the effect that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, should he get into government, was considering a smaller, inner Cabinet of a smaller and tighter size, on the basis that that was more appropriate to make decisions. We believe that a size of roughly eight to 13 would be more appropriate.
I accept that it is different from the SQA, the Scottish equivalent. But that is a very different body. First and foremost it is an awarding body rather than a regulatory body. It cannot be compared with the QCA. I accept that it is smaller than ACCAC. But then, ACCAC is not a new body. It is a reconstitution of the existing Curriculum and Assessment Authority in Wales. The existing members, chairman and chief executive will continue to serve. Consequently, it was not felt appropriate to reconsider the size of its board. No doubt my right honourable friend, if he wanted to reconstitute it at some point, would consider the advantages or disadvantages of a new body. As I said, we consider that the QCA is a new body. We consulted fairly widely on that, and decided, for the reasons that I have already set down, that a figure of about eight to 13 was about right.
I do not know whether the noble Lord wants to continue further on that question. My understanding was that we had a degree of support from the noble Lord's friends in another place. Perhaps he can tell me if that
1612
is not so. I believe that the appropriate size would be eight to 13. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to start listing certain groups at certain stages. As I said earlier, once one begins to open the door, one opens it for a great many other equally deserving cases, all of whom need representation. If one wants to go down that road, the committee route is appropriate for the authority itself. I believe that what we propose is the better way round. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
10 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I can raise one point with him. I listened carefully to what he said. Is it his feeling that the sub-committee route would be the best way of bringing on board more specific considerations—for instance, those people with experience and expertise in nursery and special education?
Lord Henley: I do not believe that one should reserve a specific seat on the authority for nursery or special educational needs. I would hope that the authority, which will recognise that it must consider these matters, just as it must consider a whole host of people ranging from teacher trainers, LEAs, teacher unions and so forth—I ran through a long list of them—will be able to ensure that appropriate people with the appropriate expertise deal with the appropriate subjects.
Baroness David: My name is attached to Amendments Nos. 155A and 155B, along with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. Amendment No. 155B covers both. We want people to be represented on the committee,
"who appear to … have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of special education and nursery education, or to have held, and to have shown capacity in. any position carrying responsibility for the provision of special education and nursery education".
It is wise to remember that the code of practice for special educational needs affects all phases of education and has a direct impact on the national curriculum and its assessment. It is vital therefore that persons with specific special educational experience are represented on the authorities.
I listened to what the Minister said in regard to the size of the authority. But will there be guidance as to the people who should be consulted when the authorities are created? I hope that some of the people who have been discussed in this short debate will necessarily be heard, because it is extremely important.
My name is also attached to Amendment No. 186F because Clause 37 refers to the QNCA—or QCA as it is for England—and Clause 43 refers to the same authority for Wales. The amendment does for Wales that which I have been saying in relation to England. I hope therefore that the Minister can say whether or not there will be guidance as to who should be included on the sub-committees so that the various interests are represented.
Lord Henley: In relation to the membership of the authority, I cannot go any further than I have. It would

1613
not be right to open the stable door for one specific group or another. It will be a matter for the authority itself to consider who to appoint on its committees, the authority having been appointed under the appropriate procedures using all the Nolan rules.
I can assure the noble Baroness that we will be advertising the posts this month, in March, and the appointments will be made some time in May. We have already appointed a chief executive. We have started the process in relation to the chairman and are fully consulting the noble Baroness's honourable friends in another place, as is appropriate for such appointments at this stage in Parliament. Thereafter it is a matter for the authority to consider who it should appoint. Guidance per se would not be appropriate. The Secretary of State will be able to keep a close eye on the appointments and may make appointments to committees in his or her name, if it is felt that representations are not working properly.
The simple point I am making, going back to the authority rather than to its committees, is that it should not be a matter for listing a whole range of people on the authority who have to be represented. As even the noble Lord, Lord Morris, accepts, that might take us back to the good old days of the schools' council.
Baroness Warnock: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I can say that I feel sure it is right for the committee to be small in number and not representative. It reminds me of the days of the committee on the education of the handicapped when, looking round on the first day, somebody said, "There is nobody here from the remedial gymnasts". If one starts giving places to the remedial gymnasts, one will have to give places to heaven knows who else.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that the names from the people who are consulted—the sub-committee members—will be published. One of the merits of sub-committees is that if the public know who the members are they can lobby them. I would just ask for that assurance when the committee is set up.
Lord Henley: I am very grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. I may say I shall always remember the remedial gymnasts, and we might reserve a place for them. But to be serious, it is a perfectly valid point. I will take advice on that, but I presume it will be a matter for the public record. If I am mistaken I will certainly let the noble Baroness know.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I was interested in what the noble Lord had to say. He mentioned that the leader of my party might possibly want a small group around him. I heard that rumour: I read about it somewhere but it did not make much of an impression on me. He will of course make his own dispositions if and when he is in a position to do so. I do not suppose that any of us will be considered for high office in that particular small kitchen cabinet.
I must say that I was not particularly satisfied with the answers given by the noble Lord the Minister on this occasion. I would have awarded no more than a grudging Beta plus. He relied too much on the
1614
floodgate argument: if we allow one in, the rest would be wanting one too. That argument, in a situation of this kind, is not a very convincing one. The underlying question, which has not been properly addressed by the Government in my view, is: what is the optimum, the best size for this body, given what it has to do?
If it has been decided that it will work through a whole raft of committees and there will be a committee on maintained schools, another on SEN and another on further education, that will be an easy solution and a bureaucrat's paradise. However, I do not think it is the kind of thing that will lead to efficient activity on the part of an organisation like the QCA. That authority is going to have to cover a vast range, and to work through committees seems too bureaucratic and detailed, as far as I am concerned. I would think it would make much better sense to work through an authority itself, which could take its own decisions at its own meetings without having to bounce things back and forth, to get minutes and reports and have referrals back from one committee to another.
It will still have to deal with maintained schools, with SEN and further qualifications—that huge area about which there will be so much detailed discussion. I feel still that it is going to be too small with its present number of eight to 13 to work effectively. On the other hand, I do not like the proliferation of committees, because the line management structure will be massive and slow. That having been said, I do not want to press this to a Division at the moment but I may very well wish to come back to the matter in greater detail at Report stage.
Finally, the Minister said something, if I understood him correctly, about the discussion in another place. He claimed that he had the support of some of my honourable friends. I have taken great care on this occasion to become acquainted with all the stages of the work of Standing Committee D on this Bill. At a quick glance and on searching my memory, I cannot remember any occasion during the Committee stage when the size of the QCA was debated. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister can put me right on that, but I do not think it was at Committee stage. It may have been elsewhere. If the Minister would care to intervene, he may do so right now—
Lord Henley: I cannot assist the noble Lord, but I had got the impression—perhaps unjustly—that his honourable friends supported QCA as we propose to set it up.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord although I cannot find evidence of that, but de minimis non curat lex—the law does not concern itself with trifles—and we need not take that any further now. And so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 154:
Page 32, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education in voluntary schools, or in grant-maintained schools having foundation governors;").
The right reverend Prelate said: I spoke to this amendment a moment ago but, like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I found the Minister's reply a little unsatisfying. A distinction ought to be made between what might be termed "minority interests"—important and significant as they are—and the substantial interests which are represented in both the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and, I would argue, in that to which I spoke earlier. Nevertheless, as we shall make no impression on the Minister at this hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 155 to 156A not moved.]
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 158A:
Page 69, line 35. at end insert
("( ) the Chief Inspector of the Further Education Funding Council,").
The noble Lord said: I am in a bit of quandary about this grouping. We have found Amendment No. 158A grouped with Amendment No. 168C. We are told that the groupings are,
"informal and not binding. It is therefore open to any Peer to speak to an amendment in its place in the Marshalled List".
After consideration, I do not wish to move Amendment No. 158A, but I shall wish to speak to Amendment No. 168C and, if it is in order, I shall do so in its proper place in the Marshalled List.
[Amendment No. 158A not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 38 [General function of Authority to advance education and training]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 32, line 33, leave out ("National").
The right reverend Prelate said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 159A:
Page 32, line 38, after ("quality") insert (", accessibility").
The noble Lord said: Clause 38(2) states:
The Authority shall exercise their functions under this Part with a view to promoting quality and coherence in education and training".
Those are clearly both important matters and are rightly included in the Bill, but the issue raised in this amendment is the need to ensure that the qualifications
1616
available are not only coherent and of high quality, but also accessible. Most adults study part-time. Many need to interrupt their studies. They experience a range of barriers to access, not least financial. They need access to flexible modes of study. They need to be able to acquire qualifications in small units over time. They need effective progression routes and they need qualifications that can take account of their experience of prior learning.
The amendment seeks to ensure that those issues are all within the remit of the authority. Therefore, this amendment, together with Amendment No. 162C with which it is grouped, refers to "accessibility" and requires that the authority should also exercise its functions with a view to promoting accessibility as well as quality and coherence. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I agree that it is vital for the new authority to build on the excellent work of both SCAA and NCVQ in promoting access and equal opportunities. We believe that SCAA has an explicit commitment to equal opportunities and that NCVQ has done much valuable work in this area, not least through its Access and Fair Assessment Advisory Forum. The establishment of a coherent, high quality framework of qualifications in itself encourages accessibility. The development of a new entry level for the framework in response to Sir Ron Dearing's recommendations will also do much in this area. I shall consider this amendment further and undertake to return at Report stage with appropriate amendments to reflect the concerns felt by noble Lords for those who face difficulties in achieving qualifications.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps the Minister can explain a little more clearly exactly how the Government believe that they are meeting the accessibility criteria?
Lord Henley: I believe I said that both SCAA and NCVQ had an excellent record in this matter, but I accepted the concerns voiced by the noble Lord. For that reason I agreed to table appropriate amendments at Report stage to take this matter further.
Lord Tope: For a moment I thought that my birthday had already arrived but it is at least a week nearer than it was when the Minister drew the attention of the Committee to my great age compared with his. I am grateful to the Minister for considering the matter in this way. I look forward very much to seeing what he tables at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Functions of the Authority in relation to curriculum and assessment]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 33, line 1, leave out ("National").
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 160A:
Page 33, line 21, at end insert ("; and
( ) to take into account the interests of children with special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to add to the list of functions of the QCA a specific requirement to take into account the interests of children with special educational needs. The Minister may argue when he replies that this facet is implicit in Clause 39, but it needs to be explicit in establishing a new curriculum authority to reflect advances in the legal and educational framework of special needs of recent years. Clause 39(2)(b) and (c) deal with advice on the curriculum and research to develop it. This amendment is a crucial litmus test of how far special needs will be an integral factor in these areas of the QCA's work. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am totally sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I undertake to consider it further and to return at Report stage with appropriate amendments to take account of all learners with special needs, learning difficulties and disabilities in schools, colleges, and publicly funded training.
Baroness David: I am very grateful for that response. In the light of it, I have no hesitation in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 33, line 31, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138. I beg to move.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Functions of the Authority in relation to external vocational and academic qualifications]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 33, line 40, leave out ("National").
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 162A:
Page 33, line 42, leave out ("external qualifications") and insert ("National Vocational Qualifications").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 162A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 162B, 162D, 162E and 162F. The problem here relates to the undefined and very broad nature of the powers offered to the qualifications authority in the lifelong learning area. By limiting the power to NVQs, current work can be maintained, but time would be allowed to clarify a wide array of qualifications which will be affected, and to take account of the issues which will inevitably arise in the report which we await, many of us with bated breath, of Sir Ron Dearing's committee on higher education. That will impinge upon what we have before us.
On Amendments Nos. 162B and 162F the issue is whether the QCA should approve individual courses, or whether it focuses on awarding bodies. It surely cannot be charged with deciding on the minutiae of a national curriculum for lifelong learning, which is the implication of the clause unamended. The FEFC's experience has been that three times as many vocational course units have been approved for community-based open college network qualifications than for general non-vocational qualification credits. That reflects the diversity of adult qualifications and the diversity of adults' starting points in pursuing lifelong learning.
Amendment No. 162B requires the QCA to develop criteria for approval, and Amendment No. 162F requires it to approve awarding bodies; that is, the examinations boards such as the AEB. It is not clear who would accredit qualifications. The amendments do not specifically suggest that the awarding bodies should do so, and neither are the functions of awarding bodies defined.
Amendments Nos. 162D and 162E both delete Clause 40(2)(g), which Amendment No. 162F tries to amend. Amendment No. 162D requires the QCA to establish procedures for the accreditation of qualifications submitted to the QCA, which does not seem very different from the Clause 40(2)(g), for which it is substituted. How the procedures relate to the criteria in the previous subsection is not clear—at least not to me.
Amendment No. 162E requires the QCA to set criteria for the accreditation of qualifications. The previous subsection will however require the QCA to develop and publish criteria for the accreditation of qualifications. It is likely, as far as I can see, that the amendments are aimed at reducing the centralist structure of the QCA and allowing examining bodies, rather than the QCA, to accredit qualifications. If I am correct in that, the Minister can no doubt answer. If I am incorrect, he will no doubt tell me. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I was somewhat baffled by the amendments when I first saw them. I have to say that I am now completely and utterly baffled, following the noble Lord's explanation. It might be that I shall have to look carefully at what he said when I read the Official Report tomorrow. It seems rather odd, when one looks at Amendment No. 162A, after all the pronouncements from the noble Lord and others about the importance of standards, to find what appears to be rather cavalier treatment of standards in GCSEs, A-levels and GNVQs. All we are left with are NVQs, as I understand the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 162B and 162F are somewhat more comprehensive, but again I have to confess to being not absolutely clear whether the noble Lord intends the accreditation of awarding bodies to be as well as or instead of the accreditation of qualifications. The noble Lord's speech has not enlightened me much further. I will, if I may, look at what the noble Lord said, but neither the amendments nor his explanation of them has left me much wiser. As they stand, they seem to do something that would be distinctly undesirable.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: It may be that the reason for that lies in the grouping, which puts together

1619
a number of things which, although superficially similar, are perhaps rather different, on the grounds merely that they are related to one authority.
As I was going through the groupings I found that I might be offering the Minister a little more heat than light. I believe that we would do well to reflect upon them. It is important that we get them right. As regards Amendment No. 162A, we were concerned centrally to limit the powers of the NVQs in order that what is currently being done can be maintained before we suddenly leap off into doing something else. That was in aid of the approaching difficulties that we shall have into slotting the report from Sir Ron Dearing into everything which we are currently undertaking and which seems to be perpetually on the move.
Let us by all means read what has been said tonight and perhaps return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 162B to 162F not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 162G:
Page 34, leave out lines 13 to 18.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to probe the meaning and difference of functions between the terms "accreditation" and "approval" used in the Bill and the likely effect of such powers. It is important that the use of those terms is perfectly transparent within the wording of the Bill to ensure that there is clarity of meaning in the Bill and that there is no conflict of interest between the functions to be carried out by the authority.
The amendment seeks to remove two subsections from the Bill which appear to give the new authority power directly to approve qualifications in addition to power to accredit qualifications. Commonly, the power of accreditation in relation to qualifications is taken to mean the recognition of a qualification designed by another organisation by the designated regulatory body. "Approval" tends to be used to describe the approval of a course or syllabus by the body which designed the course or syllabus. On other occasions, those descriptions are used interchangeably.
The particular use of those terms within the Bill is crucial because of the scope of the powers which would be held by the new authority and the possible conflict of interests which could arise from the exercise of such powers. The current regulatory bodies, the SCAA and the NCVQ, have rather different remits. Broadly, the SCAA accredits GCSEs, which awarding bodies have designed, sets parameters for GCSEs and has responsibility for quality assuring the relevant awarding body processes. The NCVQ is responsible for overseeing the quality assurance process of vocational awarding bodies. It has also been involved in the design of particular types of qualification; the NVQ and the GNVQ.
The new authority may be expected to take on all those roles, but it may be more appropriate and effective for a clear separation of function to be agreed between
1620
the regulatory body, the QCA, and the awarding bodies. It must be appropriate for the new authority to have the power to specify criteria and to accredit courses or syllabuses designed by awarding bodies. It is less clear that the QCA should take on the role of designing a series of qualifications within the authority.
We have only to look at the recent history and development of NVQs and GNVQs to see that the process of devising qualifications and approving them within the same organisation is open to real difficulty. GNVQs, although taken by a growing number of students, have been revised annually since their introduction, have been the subject of a major review and assessment and are still undergoing changes. Staff in colleges and schools have had to work within a system which required massive amounts of record keeping and the arrival of new sets of course specifications, often just prior to enrolment of the next intake of students.
The NVQ, although growing, is still a qualification which only 3 per cent. of the workforce holds and which has itself been subject to a major review—the Beaumont report—and is the subject of reworking in order to be relaunched in 1988. Throughout the 10 years of NCVQ's life, other vocational qualifications, such as those provided by the three major vocational-awarding bodies—BTech, now EDEXCEL, City and Guilds and RSA—have continued to be requested by employers, often because qualifications like the National Diploma contain broad educational knowledge and understanding in addition to specific occupational competence.
NCVQ continues to receive a levy of £10 from each NCVQ qualification. A similar levy on GNVQs has now been dropped. It is difficult to see how an authority, given the role of designing and approving its own qualifications, can act as an honest broker between different valid qualification types, as the body has a vested interest in the success of some qualifications at the possible expense of others. Therefore, it is essential that there is clarity about the use of language within the Bill and the purposes and powers which will be available to the new authority. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: From these Benches, we support the amendment.
Lord Henley: I found the amendment rather peculiar because I was at a loss to understand the sudden opposition to a clause which has received a high degree of support. But I now understand that it is a probing amendment. In effect, the noble Lord would like to know what is the difference between accreditation and approval.
Accreditation is what the authority will do. It will accredit a qualification such as a GCSE, A-level, GNVQ, NVQ or whatever. In passing, I assure the noble Lord that NVQs have been a great success. It was a little over a year ago that we saw the award of the millionth NVQ. I imagine that the figure is much higher now. There is an increasing recognition of the NVQ in the workplace. If the noble Lord would care to talk to

1621
employers, he would find that they speak in glowing terms about the motivational effect that that qualification has on their workforce.
In this context, approval is what the Secretary of State will do in saying which qualifications may be provided with the use of specified public funding or for pupils of compulsory school age. Obviously, we anticipate different lists for different purposes; for example, for pre-16 schooling or for TEC-funded training. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I did not intend to cast aspersions on NVQs and I hope it was not taken in that way. As the Minister identified correctly, this is a probing amendment to seek clarification. I shall read carefully in Hansard what he said and consider the matter further if appropriate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 162H:
Page 34, line 18. at end insert ("; and
( ) to secure adequate qualification mechanisms for individuals seeking qualifications.").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 164A and Amendment No. 164B will be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.
Amendment No. 162H raises the issue of the availability of mechanisms for individual people to acquire qualifications. A wide variety of ways of gaining credit are needed like those mapped in the Further Education Development Agency's work on a credit framework. People need to have ways of getting previous experience and achievement recognised for credit. That is an enormously important incentive in attracting people to particular forms of qualification. As I found so often in university work, they placed a great deal of stress on the credit that they were given or not given for what in many cases might have been half a lifetime of previous, relevant experience.
People need to be able to carry credit with them between institutions, not necessarily in the very mechanistic way of the American university credit-transfer system but in something approaching that; in other words, they need learning on the job to be recognised as having a worth and a value towards further studying. Part-time students may need to take qualifications a little at a time.
Amendment No. 164A has been tabled simply to test whether a loophole exists in Clause 40(5). That subsection disapplies the first five functions listed earlier in Clause 40 from qualifications awarded or authenticated by institutions within the higher education sector, except where those qualifications have gone through the accreditation process which QCA will establish. So, in that sense, it is a probing amendment.
Observers have pointed to a potential loophole in the regulatory framework. The intention to ring-fence degree work within universities and the higher education
1622
sector generally is understood. However, it is possible that the wording of that provision might permit any university to authenticate any course or qualification offered in the sixth-form or further education college. That qualification would then not be subject to the QCA's quality assurance process and would lie outside the national framework.
The point of Amendment No. 164A is, therefore, to establish whether or not the fear which some observers have that a university would be able to authenticate a course offered by another institution, such as the sixth-form college, is well founded. It is an important amendment because I can assure Members of the Committee that universities are now in such a hard-pressed position for resources of any kind that they are grasping for almost anything legal which will allow them to bring in a certain amount of money. They are looking for every possible means of accreditation and validation of courses almost anywhere. I do not say—because I do not believe it—that standards are, therefore, dropped; they are not, except in one or two doubtful cases which have already been dealt with. However, because of that pressure the amendment becomes particularly relevant to the work of the QCA and the accreditation of qualifications. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I shall speak to Amendment No. 164B, which forms part of this grouping. The intention behind the amendment is to draw to the Minister's attention one aspect of the Bill which was not debated in another place and which has not, so far, been debated in this Committee. Tucked away in Clause 40 of the Bill is something which may adversely affect the way in which chartered professional bodies discharge their responsibilities.
The amendment is a short one and would add the words,
"or by professional bodies established by Charter",
after the words "higher education sector". To illustrate the case for the amendment, I shall use such prominent examples as the Royal Society of Chemistry or the Institution of Mining & Metallurgy (of which I am a Fellow).
Both of those bodies award and authenticate their qualifications. For example, the Royal Society of Chemistry validates courses in a number of universities and colleges throughout the country, which lead directly to admission to the society as either a licentiate member or a graduate member. These are both processional categories of membership of the society. The licentiate membership is equivalent to a pass degree in chemistry, and the graduate membership is equivalent to an honours degree in chemistry.
The main point is that, in the case of the Royal Society of Chemistry, this is something that it has been entrusted to do for over 100 years. It has been authenticating such courses and awarding these qualifications in one form or another since the 19th century under the terms of its charter.
I understand that the Government are now proposing, in Clause 37 of the Bill, to establish the QCA, whose job it will be, inter alia, to review and accredit certain

1623
qualifications awarded, following study within the higher education sector, including the universities. It is not clear, however, from the Bill how the QCA's powers will affect the existing rights of chartered professional bodies.
Chartered professional bodies have some points of similarity with the position of universities. The Royal Society of Chemistry's role is a good example. Like many universities which were established by charter (including most of the older universities in the United Kingdom), the Royal Society of Chemistry was also established by charter almost 150 years ago; in fact, its first charter dates from 1848. Like most of the older universities, the society (together with my own professional body and several others) has long operated under chartered status approved by the Privy Council. Under the terms of its Royal Charter the society is required,
"to establish, uphold and advance the standards of qualification, competence and conduct of those who practise chemistry as a profession".
To help it fulfil its charter obligations the society is authorised to,
"cause examinations to be held",
and,
"issue formal documents certifying competency in chemistry".
The Royal Society of Chemistry, together with the other chartered professional bodies, has therefore been accorded exactly the same authority to award and authenticate its qualifications as have the universities. This amendment would clarify their position and safeguard that role.
Lord Henley: These are interesting and, I think, finely balanced amendments. I shall, if I may, speak to each in turn.
Amendment No. 162H is intended to impose a duty on the QCA to secure a sufficient supply of qualifications for individuals seeking them. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, but I think it could create substantial practical difficulties. First, there would be a clear tension between this provision and the responsibilities of the various funding authorities to secure adequate or sufficient facilities for education. Secondly, it might well result in the QCA requiring awarding bodies to provide qualifications tailored to single individuals, without regard to there being a "best fit" alternative qualification available, to costs or to the desirability of there being a transparent, easily understood framework.
Amendment No. 164A would bring every sub-degree qualification offered by an HE institution within the QCA's remit. The existence of such qualifications is a growing feature of HE, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, made clear. One has only to think of the Open University to be aware of the growing importance and value of such provision. And while all bets are off on the future direction of HE provision until Sir Ron Dearing reports, I think we could hazard a guess that any solutions he and his committee come up with might well involve an increased focus on such provision as an
1624
integral part of HE. We have been accused before of creating in QCA an authority with an excessive remit. However, I think I am fairly clear this is one area where it would not be appropriate for its remit to run.
Finally, Amendment No. 164B to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, spoke is designed to put qualifications offered by professional bodies on the same footing as qualifications offered by HE institutions. Again, I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord. The professional bodies are valued upholders of standards and an important safeguard of professional integrity. They have not, however, been treated in the same way as HE institutions because of the overarching requirement for the QCA to promote coherence. Many lower level NVQs feed into higher level professional qualifications. We want the articulation to be as clear as possible—hence the requirement, in particular, to keep such qualifications under review.
I hope that with these explanations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: If I may say so, the noble Lord the Minister has made a much better fist of trying to get rid of our amendments on this occasion than he did on the last.
I am not entirely satisfied, but I take some of the points he made. Without forfeiting my right to come back to this on Report after I have seen in print what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 162J not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendments Nos. 163 and 164:
Page 34, line 23, leave out ("National").
Page 34, line 30, leave out ("National").
[Amendments Nos. 164A to 165 not moved.]
Viscount Chelmsford Viscount Chelmsford moved Amendment No. 165A:
Page 34, line 49, at end insert—
("( ) The Authority shall establish a Board, to be known as the National Vocational Qualifications Board ("the Board") to which it shall delegate the functions falling within subsection (2) above where these relate specifically to National Vocational Qualifications.
( ) The Board shall have responsibility for the marketing of National Vocational Qualifications for such period as the Secretary of State shall direct but in no event for less than three years.
( ) The Board shall include a majority of members who have experience of, and have shown capacity in. industrial, commercial or financial matters.").
The noble Viscount said: I believe that there is a need for balance between those in training who have to do written examinations and those involved in NVQs. There is a fragile balance at this time. It is in the latter area that anxieties are being expressed currently.
I recollect that a year or two ago my own discipline, the insurance industry, was greatly alarmed when suggestions were made that qualifications could be

1625
achieved without any written examinations. I do not think that there is any doubt that insurance standards would have dropped had written examinations been overset, but happily common sense prevailed and a series of exemptions were agreed both ways, based on the levels of competence obtained in NVQs where written examinations were concerned and vice versa.
I am advised that the insurance industry training council and the Chartered Insurance Institute fully support the "employment" rather than the "academic" focus of career related qualifications. Also they have been pleased to see a growing recognition in the DfEE of the need for some sectors to have a heavier bias towards examined knowledge than others in the context of vocational qualifications.
So perhaps we can say that proponents of qualifications by written examinations are currently relaxed, but not so the proponents of competence based qualifications through NVQs. The CBI points out that NVQs are a much younger and less well established qualification: that they are a fundamental tool for the promotion of adult learning; and that they have not yet reached a critical mass and thus need a strong voice in order to remain closely related to employment needs. My own institute—I am president of IDPM, the institute for the management of information systems—supports this. So also, I am told, does the pharmaceutical and allied industries awarding body.
The first paragraph of my amendment calls for the establishment of an NVQ board to work within the framework of the new QCA to ensure that critical mass in adult learning through NVQs does in fact take place. When the discipline has matured, I suggest that such a board would no longer be necessary.
I am aware that Schedule 6 to the Bill allows the Secretary of State to direct the QCA to establish committees for specific purposes. I hope very much that he agrees with the current need to ensure NVQ maturity by retaining those best qualified to do so, as per the third paragraph of my amendment, and will be able to confirm that such a direction will be made.
My second paragraph responds to the fact that the Bill limits the activities of the QCA to the provision and dissemination of information. However, the role of the NCVQ included the requirement to market NVQs as per its 95/96 annual guidance document where it was emphasised that effective marketing was critical to take up. In effect this is also transitional but necessary in order to ensure NVQ maturity. I appreciate that the Minister may not think that the QCA or even a board set up below the QCA is the right place for marketing. But it is a job that needs to be done, and the Bill does not seem to cover it. If it is not to be covered here, who will have this responsibility once the NCVQ is no more? This is a probing amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I appreciate my noble friend's strong commitment to NVQ. It is a commitment that I share,
1626
as, I understand, does the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I retract if there was an implied criticism, in anything I said earlier.
Sir Ron's vision, when he recommended setting up a single authority responsible for all qualifications, was to bring together the academic and vocational, and to tackle the divisions between education and training—rather along the lines of the spirit behind the merger that formed the Department for Education and Employment. I am therefore anxious not to enshrine that vision in a statutory constitution of the QCA by delegating the majority of the QCA's functions in respect of NVQs to some autonomous board that would be almost separate from the QCA. That would in effect mean that the QCA was responsible for academic matters with a separate body being responsible for NVQs. I hope my noble friend will accept that.
As to marketing, I do not consider that it would be appropriate for the QCA, or even one of its committees, to be involved in promoting one of the qualifications that it regulates. That could give rise to suspicions of conflict of interest. The QCA's function of publishing and disseminating information relating to external qualifications will help schools, colleges and employers to become aware of all the qualifications in the framework. That will include information on NVQs, including the advantages they can offer for individuals and companies.
My noble friend is right to point to the importance of promoting and marketing NVQs. One principal role should lie with the Government on the one hand, and with the industry representative bodies responsible for the development of qualifications on the other. However, I give my noble friend an assurance that, even if the Government play the lead role, there are many others involved in these matters—the CBI, the IoD, the Careers Service, further education colleges, the TEC network and individual firms, which have found NVQs such a powerful tool for improving skills and the motivation of their workforce. I hope that with those explanations my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Chelmsford: I thank the Minister for his response. I do not intend to suggest that there should be an autonomous board, merely that I hope that he or his department might make a direction that a committee should, at least for a transitory period, give some protection to the NVQ side of training. I shall need to read the Minister's comments on marketing; however, I am grateful for them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 40, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: The Committee will recall that the merging of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ) was recommended by Sir Ron Dearing in his recent review of qualifications for the education of 14 to 19 year-olds. That proposal has been generally welcomed in relation to this age group and discussion of the Bill as a whole has concentrated on schooling and the education of young people. However, as the Bill is now drafted the functions of the proposed agency go far wider than this, and they will impact on the education and training of adults and their opportunities for lifelong learning. It is a matter which has barely been discussed.
Clause 40 of the Bill gives the new body functions in respect of "external qualifications", both academic and vocational. That is a very broad and very general description. Only exempted, as I said, are academic qualifications at first degree level or any comparable higher level. Clause 40 suggests that the agency will not only develop and publish criteria for the accreditation of vocational qualifications, of which there are thousands, but actually accredit them. There are already a large number—I think it is over 100 now—of independent awarding bodies, often charitable in structure, involved in this work.
Nowhere does the Bill take account of the differing needs of adults in respect of these qualifications. I think it is true to say that most adults study part time. Most adults fund their own studies; it is not easy for an adult to get himself or herself funded by some other body.
Increasingly, studies are modular. That is necessary. Many of us, especially people in higher education, have fought against this and regretted it because it imprisons the free spirit. One of the great virtues of the British university three-year undergraduate degree is that, on the whole, it does not work in these ridiculous modular structures which tell people what they have to do in sickening detail, following which they tick off the various answers to the questions produced when they take some sort of examination at the end of a term.
As I know from my work in my own subject, English literature, it is perfectly possible to have a module called "18th Century English Literature" which one can get through by reading three novels and six poems and knowing nothing whatever about anything else. But in this new form of higher and further education that we are moving into and shall have presumably throughout the next millennium, modular structures are the fashion—the norm—and we have to find ways of working with them.
Increasingly, studies are modular. Individual credits are accumulated over time to gain certification. Adults also have need of different types of certification mechanisms, such as the accreditation of prior learning, on which I place such a premium. Seventy per cent. of further education students, mostly studying vocational courses, are adults. Costs to learners are already high as few grants are available for part-time
1628
study. The power to be given to the agency to raise a levy on awarding bodies is likely to prove an additional barrier to access for part-time learners.
For these reasons, among others which I do not doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will illustrate, we are not content that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Tope: There is now widespread agreement on the importance of lifelong learning and the achievement of the national training and education targets for adults, as well as for young people, but there has been little discussion on the implications of the Bill for adult learners, further education or awarding bodies.
We believe that Clause 40 is also premature since Sir Ron Dearing is engaged in yet another review, this time of higher education. While the Bill exempts academic qualifications at degree level and higher levels, the move of the NCVQ into higher level NVQs is bound to lead to overlap with universities, especially in areas of applied study and professional qualifications. It is surely better to wait for Dearing to report before hastening to hand over these extensive powers to a new agency, particularly one whose original focus is rooted in schooling and not in post-school education and training.
For these reasons, we consider that Clause 40 should not stand part of the Bill, since all these matters require further discussion and clarification with the wide array of bodies involved, and particularly in the light of the awaited Dearing report.
Lord Henley: I find the noble Lord's behaviour quite extraordinary when it seems to be part of the policy of the party opposite to support these clauses of the Bill. No doubt the noble Lord wishes to have his amendment; possibly he wishes to have an ambush and strike the clause out.
We entirely accept the need to promote lifetime learning. That is one of the reasons why we have brought together SCAA and NCVQ. There is no reason why this clause should undermine modularity at A-levels, GNVQs or whatever in the way that the noble Lord suggested. As it is, I could not quite follow the drift of the noble Lord's argument as to whether or not he seemed to be in favour of modularity. But there it is.
Perhaps I may set out what the clause seeks to do. It sets out the authority's functions, which we have been through in some detail, in relation to external qualifications. As with the school curriculum assessment, the QCA will have full functions of review, advice, research and development and information-giving. New to this Bill is a power for the QCA to accredit qualifications against criteria which it has developed. That will give the new authority the statutory backing to build on the valuable work done by both staff and NCVQ to assure A-levels, GCSEs, NVQs and GNVQs. It will be a vital tool in implementing Sir Ron Dearing's proposals for a coherent and rigorous national framework of

1629
qualifications. In that respect it is fully within the recommendations of Sir Ron's review in his report on 16-to-19 qualifications.
I fail to understand at this late hour just why noble Lords opposite wish to oppose the inclusion of this clause, having understood that in another place it had general support from both parties opposite. Perhaps at this time of night I am naive but I shall certainly recommend those on my side of the House, those on the Cross-Benches and even, dare I say it, those on the Benches opposite to support me in accepting that Clause 40 should stand part of the Bill.
11.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 40, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 14.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 40, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
11.10 p.m.
Clause 41 [Other functions of the Authority]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 35, line 1. leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Supplementary provisions relating to discharge by Authority of their functions]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 35, line 16, leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 167A not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 167B:
Page 35, line 21, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 167C and 168A. The purpose of this amendment is to seek recognition of the need to include skill and knowledge as important considerations for the authority when seeking to meet the educational and training requirements of industry, commerce, finance and the professions—
Lord Henley: Would the noble Lord give way? Is he speaking to Amendment No. 167A or 167C?
Lord Tope: I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, did not move Amendment No. 167A. I am therefore moving No. 167B, which is simply to leave out "and", and I do not have a great deal to say on that. Therefore I am speaking to the next amendment in this group, which is Amendment No. 167C. I hope that now the Minister has recovered from his recent great victory he has managed to catch up with us.
The National Curriculum Authority, as it was called, is charged with a range of publicly funded qualifications. This function should include recognition and cognisance of the role and importance of the development of skills and specific knowledge in addition to the attainment of the required standards of practical competence. Much of the recent and current work on the development and possible revision of NBQS, for example, has been based around an acknowledgment of this need. Developments have included building to NBQ specifications and opportunities to develop key skills such as communication and working with others. New unit specifications now include information on those areas underpinning subject knowledge which it is essential for a candidate to understand. This ensures that competence is supported by a sound knowledge and rationale for the activity undertaken. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I totally agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 167C. I apologise for having interrupted the noble Lord earlier, but I have now caught up with myself, as he put it. Although I agree with the

1631
noble Lord's intention, I would argue that the amendment is totally unnecessary. Practical competence encompasses the necessary skill and knowledge that he asks for. People at work will simply not be able to demonstrate competence without skill and knowledge. The clause as it stands reflects the very strong views that were put forward forcefully and often by employers. They want trainees who can do things, and that is exactly what competence is about. They want training to be practical and they want competent employees. They do not want people with a head full of theory; they want people who can get the job done, and knowledge is an essential part of that. There is increased emphasis on that, in NVQs, as the noble Lord knows. With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the noble Lord sits down, could I press him to be a little more explicit in particular on Amendment No. 167A, and on No. 167B as well? Part of the purpose of this group of amendments is to insert accessibility to qualifications as a factor which the QNCA should take into consideration when carrying out its functions.
The issues which these amendments address include how easily or realistically individuals may gain access to courses and qualifications which QNCA will oversee. Other amendments deal with the scope and level of the qualifications, but the amendments include a requirement that QNCA considers the accessibility of the courses that it supervises—in other words, it should take an active and informative view of the education provision presented under its aegis and should consider geography, the range and level of courses and the suitability of qualifications for the educational needs of individuals. It should be proactive—consulting, researching, advising and planning—rather than a passive filter for the bids of institutions. It should not only raise standards, but should fit what is available to the needs and aspirations of students.
All our experience of working with individuals throughout their lives and of encouraging people to stay in, and to return to, training is predicated on the notion of it being readily available. Sadly, some institutions have failed to understand that if people have to attend after work in order to complete their qualifications and training, they must take account of the geography of the locality and the availability of transport when planning their provision.
These are not minor but major issues if we are to address something about which I understood the Government to be concerned. I refer to the huge shortfall in the level of access to, and the quality and range of, opportunities for people at what is called "technician level". This is a very serious subject in a country which based its educational system for far too long on educating well a small minority—it still does—but which failed to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of the average. Unlike many of our competitor countries, we have succeeded in producing among people who are deemed to be average a feeling that that
1632
will not do and that they are somehow incompetent. But they are the people whose hopes and aspirations we need to raise. They are the people we need to encourage. For them, geography, range and level of courses, and their suitability for individuals are particularly important. Could the Minister address those issues in his reply?
Lord Henley: I addressed those issues somewhat earlier, but it depends on what the noble Baroness means by "accessibility". I suspect that she has taken its definition somewhat further than matters relating purely to what might be termed equal opportunities and disability matters. I have said that I shall consider those matters and that I might have to return to them on Report. Although the noble Baroness is now taking the definition of accessibility somewhat further, I assure her that I shall look carefully at what she has said.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister. As far as I can understand it, he now agrees with me so much that he cannot agree with my amendment! I suppose that that is progress of a sort. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 167C to 168A not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 168B:
Page 35, line 24, at end insert ("and
( ) the requirement for adults seeking access to education, training and work to have access to accreditation mechanisms that take account of their prior experience, and of learners undertaking part-time study.").
The noble Lord said: We have looked at this issue slightly previously and now we are going to look at it again. The amendment seeks to draw attention to the needs of adults who will be affected by the work of the authority by charging it specifically with responsibility to have regard to their needs. First, it must have proper arrangements for their prior experience to be assessed and accredited—and it needs to be both assessed and accredited. Perhaps I may give just one example. This is the kind of provision which will benefit women returners. It will show that skills developed in even something so humdrum and mundane—dare I say it?—as household management can be transferred to small business management.
Even at this late hour, perhaps I may lighten the technical detail of the discussion by giving one example from university experience over the past five or six years. When I had the honour to be the principal of St. David's University College, Lampeter, as it then was (now the University of Wales, Lampeter), I became aware of the needs of a large number of women in that rural area for computer expertise in order to do such tasks as run farm accounts, assist in small business work and matters of that kind. A course was introduced which originally bore the title "Business Information Technology Course for Housewives". When we realised what the initials spelt we changed it to "Women Into New Technology". That was a roaring success.
It allowed women, who perhaps had seen their families grow up, to return to a university atmosphere and learn the information technology skills which were then remarkably marketable in that rural area for small businesses, shops and farm accounts.
That is a perfect example of the kind of people who can benefit in their further lifelong learning from having their prior experience assessed and accredited and being allowed to go on to other activities. First, it ensures that the authority considers the needs of adults with professional qualifications outside the European Union who cannot currently secure assessment and accreditation of such qualifications. That is a difficult and darkened area which in the past has been shunned by almost everyone but must now be addressed.
Secondly, it allows us to have in place the proper arrangements for people who study part-time. The bulk of post-compulsory students now study part-time. Many interrupt their studies and carry on later. Currently, open college networks accredit much of their vocational learning and access courses for higher education. Thirdly, it ensures that fees and possible levies do not act as a barrier to access, particularly as courses are taken in smaller modules, with smaller units of accreditation. Large numbers of adults now pay for their own studies. That is now very much the rule. The FEFC funded three times as many vocational qualifications leading to OCN credits as GNVQ units in 1995–96, largely because they were flexible and in small sized units. For example, all TUC shop steward courses now attract OCN credits. The National Open College Network is now the fourth largest vocational awarding body measured by FEFC funding. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: In supporting the amendment, I should like to point out the difficulties that one particular group of returning employees face in the labour market. I refer specifically to people who have trained as teachers, have had experience of teaching and have left the profession to raise a family. They may be out of the profession for perhaps five, 10 or 15 years and then return to teaching. I speak to this amendment because of my experience as the governor of a school. When governors determine salary levels they have to bear in mind the person's experience in the labour market. We will all be familiar with the progression of teachers' salaries through a salary scale. Over a 10 to 15-year period teachers can expect to see an increase year on year based on their experience and expertise.
If a member of the teaching profession leaves it and does something else, his or her experience outside teaching may be counted in different ways. If they have been a manager in business, the years they spend outside teaching may count on a one-to-one basis. They return to teaching at a higher salary on the basis of their previous progression.
My experience is that a teacher who had left the profession and raised a family, and had effectively been what one might describe as a housewife, had that experience discounted. It counted as half a year only. So they lost a number of years in terms of progression through the profession. The vast majority of people who became housewives did not just learn managerial skills;
1634
they learnt people skills. They gained a whole range of experience while they were housewives and mothers. A board of school governors may not recognise the experience and expertise that a housewife develops in, dare I say it, the delivery of her profession.
I am speaking in favour of the amendment because it talks in terms of access to accreditation mechanisms. If people in that position have access to an independent assessment of their abilities and the expertise they have gained, they will be recognised for what they are. It is important to establish proper accreditation mechanisms to assess the experience and expertise people gain, perhaps not just as housewives but in other areas of human activity which are of benefit to the profession. Unless we have those mechanisms, we will lose the expertise and benefits such people can provide to the wider society and we will not satisfactorily reflect their ability to contribute.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may tell him that I admire, respect and support almost all that he said. But perhaps I may place on record the fact that he should not use synonymously the terms "housewife" and "caring parent" or for that matter "carer of another person". Many women do many hours of unpaid work as carers of children, people with disabilities or elderly relatives. I hope that he will forgive me for that minor correction.
Lord Monkswell: I welcome that admonition if I did not get the nomenclature right. However, I am sure that my noble friend appreciates what I am trying to say.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I agree that it will be important for the QCA to ensure that as wide as possible a range of learners have access to qualifications, whether they be part-time learners or the women returners referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. The accreditation of prior learning is a keystone of the NVQ principle and, again, it is one that I support fully.
However, the issue must be how many of the entirely worthy and right things we would expect the QCA to do should be enshrined on the face of the Bill. I believe that, as always, there is a balance to be struck between making sure the authority does what we want it to do and allowing it the freedom to be responsive and make its own decisions.
Clause 42(1)(c)(i) refers the authority to the statutory requirements for a balanced and broadly based curriculum. Clause 42(1)(c)(ii) responds to the widespread concerns expressed in our consultation by employers that their needs, and particularly the principle of occupational competence, might be marginalised under the QCA. We thought it proper in those circumstances to impose a statutory requirement.
Consequently, I do not believe that the interests canvassed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in this amendment should be put on the face of the Bill in the same way. However, I should like to place on record that the more detailed remit letter the Secretary of State will send to the QCA, which will govern the work of

1635
the new authority, will particularly require it to have regard to the needs of part-time and late learners and to encourage appropriate forms of accreditation of prior learning. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: That reply is moderately encouraging. It was nicer than the replies which we have received to a number of amendments tonight. Mind you, as soon as we hear the words "enshrined on the face of the Bill" we know exactly which way the rest of the argument will go. Therefore, I was not unduly surprised by the Minister's closing remarks. Cherishing his earlier words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 168C to 168E not moved.]
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [The Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 168F and 168G not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [The Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendments Nos. 169 to 171:
Page 71, line 7, leave out ("National"). Page 73. line 18, leave out ("National").
Page 73, line 24. leave out ("National").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Functions of the Authority in relation to curriculum and assessment]:
Lord Henley moved Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 37, line 18. leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Functions of the Authority in relation to external vocational and academic qualifications]:
[Amendment No. 172A not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 37, line 33, leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 47 to 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Transfer of property]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 39, line 14, leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Transfer of staff]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 39, line 41, leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley moved Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 40, line 16, leave out ("the terms and conditions of his employment") and insert ("his working conditions").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 177. I am tabling these amendments on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman. Their purpose is simply better to reflect the statutory protection afforded to employees of SCAA and NCVQ by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which will apply when those employees transfer to QCA or ACCAC, as the case may be. The amendments will bring this clause into line with those regulations and with the comparable provision made under the Education Act 1993 for the transfer of employees to SCAA from the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We are well content with these amendments but there is just one question I should like to ask the Minister. Do any staff of NCVQ or SCAA not have a contract of employment but only working conditions? Does the term "working conditions" encompass more than terms and conditions of employment?
Lord Henley: I do not have the first idea but I shall write to the noble Lord on that.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 40, line 20, leave out ("the terms and conditions of a person's contract of employment") and insert ("an employee's working conditions").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [Levy on bodies awarding qualifications accredited by relevant Authority]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 177A:
Page 40, line 38, leave out ("vocational").
The noble Baroness said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, I wish formally to move this amendment.
Lord Henley: If the noble Baroness is formally moving this amendment, which has not been spoken to at any time, I should like to object to that formally.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Touché. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 177B not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 41, line 9, leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Requirement for approval of certain publicly funded and school courses leading to external qualifications]:
[Amendments Nos. 178A to 179 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Inspection of LEAs]:
[Amendments Nos. 180A to 180E not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 180F:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
(" .—(1) Each local education authority shall prepare a three-year strategic education development plan to be updated annually and submitted to the Secretary of State.
(2) An education development plan to which subsection (1) refers shall include details of how the local education authority proposes to raise standards in its area and may include other matters pertinent to the powers and duties of the authority.
(3) Each local education authority shall make arrangements to review its performance annually against the development plan, and the conclusions of such review shall be published, reported to the council and submitted to the Secretary of State with the following year's development plan.
(4) Each local education authority shall every five years commission an independent review of the discharge of its functions according to a framework established by persons representative of such authorities.
(5) Where requested to do so by the relevant chief education officer, the Chief Inspector and the Audit Commission may assist with any review carried out by a local education authority under subsection (4).
(6) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the process of review and report put in place by a local education authority is sufficiently rigorous and independent, he may either—
(a) notify the Chief Inspector that no arrangements in respect of that authority are likely to be requested for the time being under section 54(1), or withdraw any such request; or
(b) request the Chief Inspector to make arrangements for any inspection carried out under section 54 in respect of that authority to be conducted as a periodic inspection following the carrying out on behalf of the authority of any such independent local review.").
The noble Baroness said: During the debate on an earlier amendment, I noted that the Minister referred to the above amendment. At that stage, my understanding was that he would not accept it. It is important for us to probe and explore what reluctance the Government could have about the alternative local model for the inspection of LEAs. The proposed model, as set out in
1638
the amendment, would review the performance of local education authorities and each LEA would prepare a three-year strategic education development plan to be updated annually and submitted to the Secretary of State.
Subsection (2) of the amendment says:
"An education development plan to which subsection (1) refers shall include details of how the local education authority proposes to raise standards in its area and may include other matters pertinent to the powers and duties of the authority".
Under subsection (3) of the amendment,
"Each local education authority shall make arrangements to review its performance annually against the development plan. and the conclusions of such review shall be published. reported to the council and submitted to the Secretary of State with the following year's development plan".
Then, subsection (4) says:
"Each local education authority shall every five years commission an independent review of the discharge of its functions according to a framework established by persons representative of such authorities".
While subsection (5) states:
"Where requested to so by the relevant chief education officer, the Chief Inspector and the Audit Commission may assist with any review carried out by a local education authority under subsection (4)".
Finally, subsection (6) of the amendment says:
"Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the process of review and report put in place by a local education authority is sufficiently rigorous and independent",
she or he may either:
"(a) notify the Chief Inspector that no arrangements in respect of that authority are likely to be requested for the time being under section 54(1), or withdraw any such request; or
(b) request the Chief Inspector to make arrangements for any inspection carried out under section 54 in respect of that authority to be conducted as a periodic inspection following the carrying out on behalf of the authority of any such independent local review".
All those terms are part of the process of the amendment which requires development plans from LEAs. It will, of course, take Ofsted several years to inspect all local education authorities and the Bill implicitly acknowledges that fact by making the process permissive and controlled by the Secretary of State. As a back-up, inspection under an independent person—for example, as in the model employed by Staffordshire county council—offers a way of involving local expertise more rapidly without losing the benefit of what one might term "heavyweight" periodic inspection by Ofsted.
The proposed new clause leaves it to the Secretary of State to determine whether local reviews have any place within the structure. This is intended to be a constructive amendment to the Bill. It does not seek in any way to remove anything that is proposed in the legislation but it opens up the possibility for constructive developments in an important, and developmental way.
The White Paper Self-Government for Schools which preceded this Bill included a section headed, "Assessing the Effectiveness of LEAs" (paragraphs 38 to 41 in chapter five, pages 56 and 57). That section noted moves by local authorities and professional associations representing education officers to set up frameworks for the use of LEAs in self-review activities.
The final paragraph (chapter five, page 57, paragraph 41) states:
"The Government will keep the process of these initiatives under careful review, with a view to promoting over time the development of robust mechanisms for assessing and improving LEAs' performance".
This amendment provides the vehicle for the Government to do precisely that. One of its clear advantages is that it does not undermine the existing power of the Secretary of State to use the Audit Commission and HMCI to carry out a completely external inspection of LEAs. However, it allows and encourages LEAs to take the initiative for self-review which can, and on present experience would, be more extensive and far-reaching than what the Bill currently provides. The idea of development planning is already well established for schools and is built into the inspection framework that operates for them. This would make a more explicit connection between the nationally prescribed inspection process and LEAs' own initiatives for development and improvement.
Other advantages are that it is likely that LEAs with a certain amount of resource input from HMCI and the Audit Commission would be able to carry out their inspections on a three or five year cycle rather than the 12 to 15 year cycle that is currently being envisaged for the Ofsted driven process. This would deliver much more information about the performance of LEAs to the public but would not give rise to additional expenditure. Indeed, the development of an approach based on local self-review could lead to resource savings at the centre.
However, power will remain with the Secretary of State to ensure that whatever is put in place is both adequate and sufficiently rigorous to meet the purposes of the Bill. I hope that we shall receive a positive response from the Government. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: In speaking to this amendment I hope that the Government will not come forward with the idea that the problems in our education system are so immense that a three year development plan is hopelessly unrealistic and that what we need is a 10 year development plan. I support my noble friend who moved this amendment because I think at this stage in the development of our education system it is entirely realistic.
We can recognise that there are two major significant problems that our education system is beset with. The first is the physical state of the educational establishment; the fact that so many of our schools require major investment that will require five or 10 year programmes to resolve. The other major problem is the fact that we are totally incapacitated in our relationships with the rest of the world, and in particular the Continent of Europe, as regards our inability in foreign languages. I think it is well understood that we shall not resolve that problem with a three or even a five year development programme; it requires a 10 or 15 year development programme.
1640
Given the resources that we have at our disposal nationally, it is quite realistic for my noble friends on the Front Bench to propose a three year development programme at this stage. While we recognise the immense problems our education system is faced with, and the need for a 10 or 15 year development programme, it is quite reasonable that we should present at this stage a three year development programme.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I associate these Benches with the amendment. It seems to me a sensible way at least possible cost of bringing the maximum amount of pressure on LEAs to improve their performance. In the self assessment process even good LEAs have proved that they are capable of improvement. It encourages LEAs to know whether they are doing well or badly, and where to target their resources and efforts. I hope that the Minister will be inclined to accept the spirit of the amendment, even if he does not like every word of it.
Lord Henley: I have a sneaking suspicion that the proposed clause is unnecessary. In part, its provisions duplicate what is already in the Bill; and in part they would simply lead to more bureaucracy. I do not believe that they improve on the simple notion that LEAs should be inspected. I hoped that we would discuss that on an earlier clause but for some reason both the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, chose not to move the amendments which were originally in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, but later in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I suspect that they discovered that that was not official party policy. The amendments merely complicate and confuse.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Is the Minister asking us to move every single amendment on the Marshalled List? If so, I suspect that we should be ordering breakfast.
We seek to bring together certain issues in Committee. We shall come back on Report to many of the issues that are not moved tonight. It is a little unreasonable to challenge us as to why we do not move amendments when it is ten minutes to twelve and we still have many amendments to discuss. If the Minister wishes, we can ungroup—
Lord Henley: I was not referring to an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, but to an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. What was intriguing was that it was originally in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and related to the dropping of "Chief Inspector" and inserting "Audit Commission". For some reason—I think the noble Baroness suddenly discovered the policy of the party opposite—she decided to withdraw the amendment. I recommend that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, also looks at her own party's policy and she will discover that it too is in favour of inspection by the chief inspector and not the Audit Commission. But that is in passing. I believe that the amendment simply complicates and confuses the issue.

1641
Let me take the first part of the new clause, the preparation of three-year strategic education development plans. I do not believe that this would be a suitable matter for the Bill. Our purpose here is to facilitate the inspection of a stratified sample of LEAs, so that the quality of support provided by different LEAs can be compared. That does not require the submission of LEA development plans from each and every LEA. Such plans are a matter for the LEA itself in the first instance. Ofsted will of course take into account an LEA's intentions as set out in its plans, but above all it will be interested in what an LEA does, not what it said it would do.
Similarly, I fail to see the purpose of subsection (3), which would require LEAs to publish an annual review of their performance against the proposed three-year strategic education development plan. There are already provisions requiring action plans of LEAs following inspection. And under Clause 54(6) LEAs will supply HMCI with information to underpin inspection.
The framework on which LEA inspection will be based has been the subject of substantial consultation and will form the basis of the independent Ofsted-led inspections as set out in the Bill. Why, therefore, spend scarce public resources on a further pattern of five-yearly or three-yearly reviews against yet another framework?
Moreover, it is a recipe for increased bureaucracy at every level: the LEA will be devising frameworks and contracting inspectors; Ofsted and the Audit Commission may be involved in the LEA reviews as well as the Ofsted inspections. And the Secretary of State will need to decide whether the LEA reviews are sufficient to supersede Ofsted inspections. What possible contribution can this duplication of effort make to improving the standards of education in our schools? I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government's response on this issue is a disappointment. I hope that, notwithstanding the Minister's rejection at this stage, he will take time to consider the matter between now and Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Reports of inspections under s.54 and action plan by LEA]:
[Amendment No. 180G not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Inspections involving collaboration of Audit Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 180H to 180S not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [School inspections]:
Lord Henley moved Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 74, line 14, at end insert—
("Rights of entry etc. for Chief Inspectors
For subsections (8) and (9) of section 2 of the 1996 Act (functions of Chief Inspector for England) there shall be substituted—
"(8) For the purposes of the exercise of any function conferred by or under this section the Chief Inspector for England shall have at all reasonable times, in relation to any school in England—

(a) a right of entry to the premises of the school; and

(b) a right to inspect, and take copies of, any records kept by the school, and any other documents containing information relating to the school, which he requires for those purposes.

(9) It shall be an offence wilfully to obstruct the Chief Inspector for England—

(a) in the exercise of his functions in relation to the inspection of a school for the purposes of subsection (2)(b); or

(b) in the exercise of any right under subsection (8) for the purposes of the exercise of any other function."

. For subsections (8) and (9) of section 5 of the 1996 Act (functions of Chief Inspector for Wales) there shall be substituted
"(8) For the purposes of the exercise of any function conferred by or under this section the Chief Inspector for Wales shall have at all reasonable times, in relation to any school in Wales—

(a) a right of entry to the premises of the school; and

(b) a right to inspect, and take copies of, any records kept by the school, and any other documents containing information relating to the school, which he requires for those purposes.

(9) It shall be an offence wilfully to obstruct the Chief Inspector for Wales—

(a) in the exercise of his functions in relation to the inspection of a school for the purposes of subsection (2)(b); or

(b) in the exercise of any right under subsection (8) for the purposes of the exercise of any other function.".").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 182. These are straightforward amendments. Their purpose is to ensure that Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools in England and Wales will each have the right of access to schools premises and records.
The two amendments would allow the chief inspectors to authorise Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools additional inspectors or other members of their staff to exercise wider rights of access on their behalf. This would be to collect evidence about aspects of educational standards and quality above and beyond that collected in the course of inspections carried out under other provisions of the Schools Inspections Act. This allows them, for example, to gather information from schools on issues such as exclusions and reading ability.
Other reports published by the chief inspectors—most notably their annual reports—have contributed significantly to public knowledge of standards in schools in England and Wales. Visits to schools under the extended right of access would normally involve looking at lessons and pupils' work, examining documentation and holding discussions with staff, pupils and others.
Although most schools are happy to co-operate on a voluntary basis with informal visits by inspectors gathering evidence for report or survey, the Government consider it important that the chief inspectors' rights of access are set out clearly in statute. I commend the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: These amendments seem to us not so much drafting amendments, which most of the previous ones have been, but considerable small additions to, and improvements upon, current legislation.
Nevertheless, there are some questions that we would like the Minister to address before we are completely satisfied. It is quite true that the majority of schools, if approached by HMCI and others with a request for entry for one purpose or another, are not going to stand on the letter of the law and look up the relevant statute before giving permission. That is not the relationship that exists between the inspectors and the schools, for good reasons and bad.
However, it appears that we have here a clarification of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors' statutory powers of entry to schools, which includes HMI and, by virtue of Amendment No. 182, additional inspectors. So it is a not inconsiderable addition.
At present, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector has the right to enter the premises of a school and take copies, etc., of records only when formally inspecting a school under Section 2(2) of the School Inspections Act 1996. That is quite clearly laid down; and obstruction of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector in that respect is a criminal offence.
This amendment broadens that right of entry to cover any of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors' functions so that there does not have to be a formal inspection of the school for that right of entry to be exercised. We must be quite clear about that. For instance, it could be pursued in order to give advice to the Secretary of State about the quality of education in any named school without having to launch a formal inspection. At least, that is the way it seems to us. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us a definitive answer to the question of whether it is or is not. I hope he may be able to use the immortal phrase used by so many of his colleagues on the Front Bench, "My Lords, it has just come to me that … "
Amendment No. 182, on the other hand, appears to us to clarify the law on the rights of entry for additional inspectors. Let us be quite clear as to who they are. They are individuals appointed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors to do inspection work who are not themselves made HMI, and additional inspectors will have the right to enter schools and still have the protection that an offence is committed if they are obstructed.
I think that even at this witching hour we need the Minister to say one or two things: first, to justify this new power a little more and to give examples of why Her Majesty's Chief Inspector might need this power outside a formal inspection. Secondly, since the matter
1644
has been raised by the Government, one might ask why it is an offence to prevent HMI from going into a school but not a chief education officer.
Midnight
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is right to say that these amendments are not merely drafting amendments and that they go wider than that. That is why I wrote to the noble Lord in some detail on these amendments and I hope it is why—but no doubt there are others who advise him—he was able to set out clearly our current position with regard to rights of access. We considered that it was necessary but that there were certain matters that needed a degree of elucidation and clarification and the Bill provided an appropriate opportunity for that.
The noble Lord asked about Amendment No. 182. I can assure him that he was right that it allows the delegation of the functions to those who are not chief inspectors, but obviously those will be people appointed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors under the other statutory powers.
He also asked why the Chief Inspector was able to go beyond a formal inspection of a school and why he needs to have these wider powers. To put it very simply, it is to carry out the range of functions laid down in the School Inspections Act, which unfortunately I do not have before me. I think it is Section 2(1) and 2(2) that I should refer the noble Lord to but I shall have to take advice on that because, though it did suddenly come to me, I might not be as clear as I could be. I had better write to the noble Lord about that in due course.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 182.
Page 75, line 24, at end insert—
("Delegation of functions of Chief Inspectors
.In paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 1 to the 1996 Act (performance of functions of Chief Inspectors), for "in conducting an inspection under section 2(2)(b) or section 5(2)(b)" there shall be substituted "under sub-paragraph (1) or (2)".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 182, it has now come to me. I was being somewhat incompetent. Somehow a copy of the School Inspections Act 1996 did come to me. If the noble Lord looks at Section 2(1) he will see the functions set out in some detail for the Chief Inspector and similarly in Section 2(2). I believe that the noble Lord would find a study of those subsections of some use and I hope it would answer the point he raised about the need for the clarifications as set out in these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. He has been alone at that Dispatch Box since three o'clock. I appreciate that at the hour of five minutes past midnight he might not be in total command of every last jot or tittle of his briefing. Still, if he will permit me, I shall brutally press him on the last question that I asked him. Why should

1645
it be an offence to prevent an HMI—we are not talking about the HMCI—from going into a school but that does not apply to a chief education officer?
Lord Henley: An HMI will need access to all those schools in the maintained sector that he will be inspecting, whether grant-maintained, county, voluntary or whatever. Obviously, that will not be the case with the chief education officer whose writ will run only in relation to his own schools. It is obviously a matter of the arrangements that the LEA and the chief education officer make about access that he should have to his own schools.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am not convinced about that. But I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Provision of careers education in schools':
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 182A:
Page 44, line 35, after ("of") insert ("personal development and guidance including").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to change the limited definition of "careers advice and guidance" within the Bill and to broaden the focus explicitly to embrace a wider range, for example, by placing careers education in its proper context of personal development and guidance.
The intention behind the amendment is to recognise the need for a broader approach to the content of a truly effective programme of careers education which recognises the proper context of the individual's personal development. Careers Service professionals recognise that a key ingredient of a successful programme of careers education and guidance must include an element of personal development and education for the individual concerned. That is especially important for young people, whose needs and individual level of maturity in terms of self-awareness and understanding will vary and change substantially between the ages of 14 to 16, the age range at which the Bill envisages that the programme of careers education will be targeted initially in schools.
The amendment simply aims to secure on the face of the Bill a recognition of that important distinction. To clarify beyond doubt the holistic approach to successful careers education and guidance is what this Bill endorses, thereby strengthening the statutory basis for careers education and guidance in schools and colleges. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: As the noble Lord made clear, the amendment extends the duty to provide curriculum coverage beyond careers education also to cover the more general needs relating to personal development. It would place a somewhat wider duty on schools and dilute the careers focus of this part of the Bill. As the noble Lord is aware, Clause 59 is specifically focused on careers education in recognition of the need for schools to devise an education programme which relates
1646
to preparing pupils for careers decisions and their implementation. Pupils need to understand the careers choices and opportunities available to them.
The amendment attempts to place a duty on schools which in practice would not add much at all. I also believe that to bring in an amendment of this kind would lose focus through adding a somewhat vague requirement. That is an important point to consider. That point—the vagueness of what "personal development and guidance" in fact mean—is an important one, since it will prevent enforcement and will therefore, I suspect, weaken rather than strengthen the provision.
Lord Tope: I do not agree with the Minister on this matter, but I am grateful for his reply, which I shall look at carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Schools and other institutions to co-operate with careers advisers]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 46, line 34, at end insert ("and
(c) institutions outside the further education sector attended by persons whose education is secured by a further education funding council.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 183 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 185 to 188. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that disabled students at independent specialist colleges receive adequate careers advice and guidance. SKILL, which is the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities—here I declare an interest in that I am president of SKILL—is concerned that under the Bill as it stands these students are not covered by Clauses 60 and 61.
I should like to make it clear straightaway that these amendments are probing by nature and will, I hope, provide the Minister with an opportunity to give an assurance that the interests of those students will be safeguarded. I am grateful to the Minister for making time last week to meet and discuss this and other matters relating to students with disabilities with me and members of staff from SKILL and MENCAP. I also thank his department for a lot of hard work and co-operation on these matters.
Amendment No. 183 is to Clause 60, which allows the careers advisers from the career companies to gain access to students in schools and colleges. Amendments Nos. 185 to 188 are to Clause 61 which requires schools and colleges to ensure that appropriate careers materials are available to students. The clauses apply to maintained schools, including maintained special schools and colleges in the FE sector; but they do not cover independent specialist schools or colleges which fall outside the FE sector and which are attended by publicly-funded students. Those students obviously have just as much need and indeed the right to careers advice and materials.
The existing voluntary arrangements between the independent specialist schools and colleges and the careers services seem to work satisfactorily at present. But that is not a guarantee that that co-operation will continue in the future. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will be able to give some sort of reassurance that that can be safeguarded. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I take it that the noble Baroness was speaking to Amendment No. 183 followed by Amendments Nos. 185 to 188.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): That is correct. I was not speaking to Amendment No. 184.
Lord Henley: I was grateful for the opportunity to see the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and those advising her. We had some useful discussions. It is quite deliberate that the scope of the careers education and guidance clauses does not extend to independent institutions in either the schools or colleges sectors—except for city technology colleges, which receive all of their running costs from public funds.
There is an important point of principle behind this decision. In general, education legislation places requirements on schools and colleges within the publicly-funded state education service, but not on independent institutions. The Government believe that, in the absence of strong reasons to the contrary, the state should not seek to regulate independent institutions in the way that it regulates the publicly-funded sector.
In this instance, there are no strong reasons for departing from that line, particularly as existing legislation relating to the provision of careers services already ensures that young people in independent institutions are entitled to the provision of information, advice and guidance by those careers services. My understanding is that the present arrangements under which independent colleges work with careers services are satisfactory.
Therefore, though I see no grounds for imposing a legal requirement, I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and others who promote the cause of students with learning difficulties and disabilities who attend such institutions. We are keen to respond positively. Accordingly, officials in my department and in the Welsh Office have discussed this matter with the further education funding councils and we believe there is scope for adding an appropriate form of words to the contract documents under which students are supported in independent colleges. That change would be underpinned by other measures to promote good practice.
I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will be content with that response and will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. That is a satisfactory assurance
1648
that the careers guidance of individual students will be looked after. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope moved Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 183A:
Page 47, line 6, leave out from ("education") to end of line 7.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 183A is to ensure that all part-time students have an entitlement to careers guidance. We have discussed a number of times this evening the importance of part-time education. The effect of this amendment would be to delete from the Bill the words,
"of a description commonly undergone by persons in order to tit them for employment",
which we feel is a little restrictive. Some 80 per cent. of students in the further education sector study part time. They include not only those who study for vocational qualifications but a large number who are studying part time for A levels or other general qualifications. All students should be entitled to at least initial support to help them to make career choices or to move from one occupation to another. The current wording of the Bill is unnecessarily restrictive, in our view, and will not meet the needs of a large number of learners. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: If I may rise briefly in support of this amendment, it is simply to ask a few questions. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that the current wording of the Bill was unnecessarily restrictive. May I ask the Minister why that is so? What perils and dangers are anticipated? Would it be vastly costly and, if so, how costly, to extend this guidance to all part-time students?
Lord Henley: Obviously there would be cost implications but I could not be specific about them without notice, if at all. Those putting forward amendments with cost implications ought to be prepared to consider the implications themselves. I think we should be very wary of taking forward amendments that have further cost implications.
Obviously the amendment would require FE colleges to provide access to the careers services by a much wider category than is currently set out. Since the purpose of the clause is to allow careers services access only for the purpose of carrying out the Secretary of State's statutory duties under Section 8 of the Employment and Training Act 1973, the amendment would clearly be out of step with that intention. What that Act recognises is that careers education and guidance services should be targeted on a specified group of further education students. The aim is to offer information and advice to those on courses from which they are likely to go on to employment. That is achieved by including all those students on full-time courses and those on part-time courses commonly undergone by persons just to fit them for employment. To remove the words suggested by the amendment would take the provision out of line with the earlier Act and give careers services access to students for whom they are not contracted to provide such services. That would be

1649
an anomaly and there would be a cost. I therefore have to say to the noble Lord that I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: Before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, responds in terms of how he intends to proceed, I wonder whether I may put just two points to the Minister. The first is that surely the very process of having to distinguish between the vocational and the non-vocational students in a particular college is likely to lead to bureaucracy, cost and time-consuming activity. It would therefore be a costly activity in itself. The proposal to extend this advice to what I might describe as the non-vocational students will in fact be an on-cost, according to the Minister. I would argue that it may actually reduce costs because one would not have to make the distinction.
The second point concerns the argument that we had last year or the year before about the difference between vocational and non-vocational courses. The Minister will be very clear about the example of the student who was engaged in a "non-vocational" course in flower arranging and went on to found quite a significant medium-sized business on the basis of the skills he had learned as a "non-vocational" student. I hope that the Minister and the Government will learn the lesson that it is nonsense to make a distinction between vocational and non-vocational students.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord's point is a red herring. We are not distinguishing between vocational and non-vocational courses. We are simply doing something that we have done since the 1993 Act and that is distinguishing between those who are on courses from which they are likely to go on to employment and those who are not.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Is it the case that students who are in receipt of income support are deliberately prohibited by the Government from studying for more than a very limited time and must restrict their study to part-time or lose their benefit, yet they are the very people who would benefit most from careers advice that may enable them to find employment?
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness takes me on to something akin to the Schleswig-Holstein question. I used to know the answer to the difficult rules relating to how long one can study while claiming benefit. There have been a number of changes to the various rules relating to studying while on income support, but I think that those who are on income support who are actively seeking work should be actively seeking work. Other openings might be available to them. As I have said, I am somewhat out of touch with the rather complex rules relating to income support. It has been some years since I served in the Department of Social Security, but I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness with more details of the complexities of the matter.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He has not entirely convinced this side of the Committee, but this is not the time to press the matter, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Provision of careers information at educational institutions]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 47, line 22, at end insert ("in appropriate accessible formats.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that careers guidance and reference materials are made available to students in formats such as braille or large print where appropriate. It is again a probing amendment, hoping for an assurance from the Minister.
Clause 61 requires schools and FE colleges to provide students with access to guidance and reference materials on careers education and opportunities. SKILL is aware that few careers materials are presented in formats accessible to students unable to read standard print and that materials accessible in other formats are not widely available. Advice to schools and colleges may encourage institutions to consider alternative formats, but the costs of brailling or of specialised materials can be a deterrent. What is needed is a requirement on institutions to make such provision a priority. I very much hope to hear from the Minister that, if he cannot accept the amendment, he will be able and willing to achieve the same aim by different means, perhaps by mention in a circular. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I did not have a chance to say that I supported the last amendment because the Minister was so quick on his feet, but I did support it strongly and I also support this one strongly. Materials must be in a form that students can understand and follow, preferably without having to have an interpreter. I hope that the Minister will have a sympathetic response to this amendment.
Lord Addington: Very briefly, I support the amendment. It is utterly absurd to provide information that somebody cannot understand. It might as well not be there at all.
Lord Henley: I very much agree with that latter point about providing information that one cannot understand. It happens to us all on many occasions—and on all sides of your Lordships' House.
I sympathise with the amendment. I am sure that, as always, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, will agree that such matters of detail are not appropriate for the Bill and are better provided in the guidance that will be issued to supplement and explain the legislation to those who have to implement it.
I believe that much of what is wanted is already provided for. Careers services are required, through their contract with the Secretary of State, to provide material which should be presented in such a way as to enable persons with learning difficulties or sensory impairments to make use of and understand it. Thus, the

1651
way is clear for each institution in working up its partnership with the Careers Service to explain the needs of its pupils or students and agree how information can be most helpfully presented. I will ensure that institutions are reminded of this in circulars that emanate from my department and are sent to both schools and colleges to explain the legislation. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the as ever down-to-earth and sensible noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their support. I also thank the Minister and his department who were very helpful beforehand in this matter. I appreciate the Minister's comment about this matter not being in primary legislation. A circular would be extremely satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 185 to 188 not moved.]
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 188A:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—
CAREERS ADVICE: PUPILS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
(" A careers adviser shall, in making available careers education to a registered pupil who has special educational needs, have regard to any Code of Practice issued under section 313 of the Education Act 1996.").
The noble Lord said: The intention of this amendment is to probe, and secure clarification from, the Government on an issue debated in the other place in Standing Committee D on 16th January. The question was whether it was adequate simply to rely on guidance which the DfEE intended to issue to careers advisers that they should take account of the code of practice on SEN, or whether there was a need to insert the new clause, which forms this amendment, on to the face of the Bill to secure that widely shared objective. In a debate on an identical amendment moved at the final sitting of Standing Committee D, the Minister of State, Mr. Eric Forth, initially gave assurances he was confident that,
"the statutory duty to ensure [that] the code (of practice on SEN) takes account of that is already in place".—[Official Report, Commons. 16/1/97; co1.618.]
However, in his subsequent remarks the Minister appeared to equivocate on his opening position and acknowledged that he would be prepared to consider the matter further. He gave a commitment to see whether there would be any need to remedy the situation in practice. The Minister stated his intention to secure for himself further advice on this issue.
This new clause is intended merely to establish whether the Government consider that there is any need to make additional references to the SEN code of practice in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I can give an assurance that the appropriate legal duty to take account of the code in
1652
careers education provision already exists. There is already a mechanism for bringing the Careers Service into the good practice promulgated by it. Therefore, the noble Lord's new clause is unnecessary and his concerns about careers advisers having regard to the code of practice are already dealt with.
Lord Tope: I am not convinced that that deals with the issue that I raised, but given the time of night I will wait to study it until a little later this morning. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 190:
Before Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
(" . In section 316(1) of the Education Act 1996 (Children with special educational needs normally to be educated in mainstream schools), after the word "needs" there shall be inserted the words "who does not have a statement to the effect that he is mentally handicapped or that he suffers from learning disabilities and".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 190 I should declare an interest as the father of a 16 year-old mentally handicapped child. Section 316 of the Education Act 1996 places a duty on LEAs and others to educate all special educational needs children in mainstream schools. That duty is qualified by the following four provisos. First, such mainstream education should not be incompatible with the wishes of the child's parents. Secondly, the mainstream school must be able to provide the special education that the child's learning difficulty calls for. Thirdly, the child's presence must not compromise the education of the other normal children. Fourthly, resources must be used efficiently. This amendment would remove mentally handicapped children from the scope of Section 316 and thus from the present presumption that they should be educated in a normal school. The amendment would do nothing to suggest that they would instead have to be educated in a special school. It would merely help to remove the very considerable difficulties that parents face when they want a special school for their child. Nor would the amendment do anything to frustrate the reasonable wishes of parents who want their mentally handicapped children to go to an ordinary school, which can work well for appropriate children in an adequate special unit. Of course, much may depend upon the degree of handicap of the child. By mentally handicapped children, I mean those who have a statement to the effect that they suffer from what are known in the jargon as learning disabilities.
The amendment would not affect other categories of SEN children who, as the Committee will be aware, amount to a very broad range of difficulty, disability and handicap. It refers only to mentally handicapped

1653
children who, I submit, are uniquely disadvantaged in the learning process which should take place in a normal school.
I moved a similar amendment on 29th April 1993 (Official Report, cols. 516 to 533) nearly four years ago, when we debated the Bill which introduced Section 316, as it now is. The Committee may recall that there was widespread sympathy for this amendment from all sides of the Chamber, but, to my regret, I did not ask for the opinion of noble Lords then. I say this because in the intervening four years it has become clear that the amendment was necessary then, and that none of the four provisos in Section 316 is working as the Government hoped that they would. The amendment is therefore even more urgent today.
At this late hour I shall not weary the Committee with too much detailed evidence, but as to the first proviso, the wishes of parents who want their mentally handicapped children to go to a special school are often being frustrated. As to the second proviso, those children are therefore often being forced into ordinary schools where adequate special provision is not genuinely available; and for the third proviso, this situation must clearly have a disruptive effect on the education of the other children in the schools in question.
Finally, the fourth proviso does not appear to be working either, because it is not necessarily proving cheaper to educate mentally handicapped children in mainstream schools. For example, I hear that one of the three special schools for children with severe learning disabilities in Doncaster is to close, although demands for its service remain as high as ever. It is not being closed because it is too expensive, but because some 960 non-teaching assistants are being employed in mainstream schools in the area to help in looking after those most unfortunate children, and those assistants' costs have to be met from the general SEN budget. I cast no aspersion upon Doncaster which is doubtless doing its best as a victim of the mainstream-at-any-price ideology which now so regrettably grips our education system.
But I cannot help wondering how those 960 non-teaching assistants are really helping the education of the special children in their care. Would the budget not be better directed towards special schooling with all the economies of scale and availability of special teaching which that would surely bring?
I hope that the Committee can accept that, as the father of a mentally handicapped child, I am not basing my case on saving money; I merely point out that even the fourth proviso of Section 316 is not working as perhaps it was hoped that it might. The other three provisos have proved to be the failure which nearly all noble Lords who spoke in our debate four years ago forecast they would be. Section 316 is therefore very frustrating and unfair to parents who wish to escape its effects. It is often damaging to their children, and it is then damaging to normal children in mainstream schools with whom they have to share
1654
education. The amendment would do much to alleviate this unfortunate state of affairs when it occurs and so I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Rix: I read the amendment with incredulity. It seems to me to cast children with learning disabilities back into the dark ages before the Education Act 1970 to a time when we parents had to raise the money to build a school into which to put our children and partially trained teachers so that they might learn a few rudimentary facts of life. How far we have come since then can be judged by the fact that our children with special educational needs can now go to mainstream schools with appropriate support. Some do very well with GCSEs, jobs and even driving licences. Of course, parents, being naturally protective, wish to be able to choose between a special school and a mainstream school, but with the right support in the latter the choice is made easier. To bar them or their child from the possibility of that child entering a mainstream school seems to me both punitive and discriminatory.
The Committee may be interested to hear a few statistics about special needs education which I obtained today from the Library. In January 1996 there were 1,084,126 children with general special educational needs, of which 126,813 are in primary and secondary maintained mainstream schools in England with a statement. Amendment No. 190 would cut a swathe through those figures. It must be clear to the Committee that I hope that it and the Government will reject the amendment with little further ado.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may briefly speak against the amendment, which worries me greatly. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will not press it now or at any stage as I would have to vote against it. The noble Lord speaks from direct personal experience and I acknowledge the depth of his feeling, but so does the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who I believe spoke very compellingly. MENCAP also believes that children with special needs should receive the education that is appropriate to those needs in whatever educational setting suits them best.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, says that he is trying to redress the balance which in the Act is tilted in favour of mainstream education, but I know that a high proportion of parents who fought very hard to achieve a mainstream education for their children are the parents of children with learning disabilities. I urge the noble Lord to consider carefully the effect that the amendment would have by way of further tilting the scales against them.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may put briefly to my noble friend what his amendment seems to achieve. I do not know whether it is the intention, but it would remove the presumption of a mainstream school placement for parents of children who have a mental handicap or learning difficulties and also have a statement.

1655
It is important to bear in mind that the amendment would deny such parents a very important choice. I see no reason for doing so. Under Section 316 there is a presumption of going to mainstream schools and many parents believe that that is entirely appropriate for certain children in this form of special educational needs. For others it may not be, and one always hopes that the decision will be made as appropriate in line with the best interests of the parents and children.
In the view of the Government, the right course is to allow parents the opportunity to ask for a place at a mainstream school, if they wish, and for the LEA to consider whether a mainstream placement would be suitable for the child; then obviously to give the parents the right to appeal to the SEN tribunal in the event that the LEA refuses to accede to the parents' wish for a mainstream place.
I do not believe that it would be right to remove the entitlement from the parents of children with certain types of special educational needs. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I obviously do not wish to press the amendment this evening, but I shall certainly return to it at the next stage with more support. Unfortunately, given the lateness of the hour, that is not here.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), that I do not think they listened to what I said. My amendment does not produce—and I merely ask them to read in Hansard and perhaps we can discuss it at the next stage—the effect which they say it would produce.
As I say, I do not want to delay the Committee but my noble friend on the Front Bench says that my amendment would deny parents the very choice which I am seeking to grant them. But the fact is that Section 316 as worded says that the child has to be educated in a school which is not a special school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents. That is the hurdle which these parents have to jump. The tribunal is not solving the issue. Therefore, I do not agree, I am afraid, with anything that has been said by the three previous speakers. I will be returning, as I say, to the matter at Report stage with the support of my noble friends Lady Cox, Lord Renton and others and I suggest that we leave the matter until then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 193:
Before Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
REDUCTION IN CLASS SIZES
(" . After section 355 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
1656
"Reduction in class sizes.
355A.—(1) Each local education authority shall determine, and notify the Secretary of State as to, targets for the maximum number of pupils in classes in maintained schools in its area with respect to such years and year groups as the Secretary of State may specify.
(2) The Secretary of State may make grants to local education authorities for the purposes of securing reductions in numbers in classes.
(3) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local education authorities, or to governing bodies or headteachers of maintained schools, for the purposes of this section.".").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to require local education authorities to set targets for reductions in class sizes.
The arguments for the amendment are simple. All other things being equal, teachers teach better and children learn more easily if teachers have to work with fewer children at a time. Of course, all other things are not equal. An excellent teacher will do well with a class of 40 even if that teacher is acutely aware that those children could have done so much better with a class of 20. A poor teacher will fail to communicate and engage with a class of 15, although it is likely that confrontation with 35 or 40 pupils may lead to total failure.
What is raised repeatedly by the Government is the argument that because they claim that there is no measurable improvement until class sizes are below 20, there is little point in setting targets for maximum class sizes for children in England and Wales.
In Scotland, there is a nationally agreed maximum class size. I understand that as a result of negotiations between the teachers and their employers, it is the practice in Scotland to agree to maximum class sizes.
The Government can say for as long as they wish that children are as well educated in a group of 35 as to 25 or 40 as to 30. We have just been discussing the issue of special educational needs. Statemented pupils take additional staffing with them; non-statemented pupils do not. Many larger classes are in areas and localities where there is a problem with large numbers of children with moderate special educational needs and learning difficulties.
Money should not be being used to buy for the most able children, chosen by selection, at the expense of resources for children in classes which are growing larger and larger.
We hear much in your Lordships' Chamber about the need to inculcate in our young children a sense of moral values, worth, understanding and genuine social development. Any good teacher will tell you that that involves the teacher, particularly with young children, having an opportunity to talk to and listen to individual children. Money is a scarce resource and that resource ought to be available for all the nation's young children. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Henley: I have to say, again, that I believe that such an amendment is over-prescriptive and

1657
would not actually be helpful to schools. Under local management of schools, decisions about class sizes in individual schools are taken, quite rightly, by head teachers—dedicated professionals who know their own pupils' needs. Decisions which many have taken show that they do not believe that class size is the key issue. Indeed, some have chosen to group more than 30 children in—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but can he give Members of the Committee an example of a head teacher in any infant or primary school in England or Wales who has had to increase class sizes and who has stated publicly that he or she regards this as somehow not important?
Lord Henley: Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to develop my argument. I was about to make a very crucial point. Obviously I cannot give an example from 24,000 schools of the sort that the noble Baroness demands. However, some head teachers have chosen to group children in larger groups so that they can focus greater support in smaller groups on those who might have extra needs.
It is important to remember the very dramatic growth in the number of support staff over the past few years; for example, the number of support staff in primary schools has grown by some 50 per cent. in the past four years. That seems to suggest that many heads feel that it is more effective to take on support staff to give teachers flexible assistance when and where it is needed, rather than try to keep class sizes at some arbitrary maximum. I believe that those decisions are ones which, quite rightly, ought to be taken by the teachers and not by either LEAs or Ministers. An amendment of this sort would take such decisions out of the hands of the head teachers. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on the matter. Through my interest, which I declare, as a member of a local education authority—though not an abiding interest because I do not intend to stand for re-election on 1st May—I am aware that the Government have repeatedly put pressure on LEAs to reduce the actual level of their spending on education. My understanding is that the average over-spend, the money spent in excess of that which the Government consider to be necessary, provided by LEAs to schools is in the order of £80 per pupil and that, in some cases, the difference between the Government's proposal for the local authority's expenditure in the schools and its actual expenditure is as high as £200 per pupil.
I also understand that many head teachers and governing bodies, faced with scarce resources, have had to make judgments about who they can and cannot afford to employ. But, from a wide range of colleagues covering LEAs in Wales, in the counties of England, in the unitary authorities and, indeed, in the metropolitan districts, I have absolutely no
1658
experience of any head teacher who would view replacing a teacher appointment with a non-teaching member of staff as anything other than an essential expedient when faced with such pressures.
Let us consider, for example, the past three years. If we take away the increase in pupil numbers in this sector of the primary education field and take away the additional legislative costs imposed on the education service—for example, for seat belts—together with the government-determined levels of teachers' pay, the Government have reduced the money available. I think the Minister may well live to regret having implied in his reply to the amendment that head teachers in England and Wales are happily increasing class sizes and regard non-teaching support staff as an adequate replacement for the qualified teaching staff that in their professional opinion they believe would be of benefit to children.
Lord Henley: It was not my intention to respond but I cannot allow the noble Baroness to get away with putting words into my mouth in the way that she did. First, I did not say in any way whatsoever that I thought teachers were being replaced by assistants. What I made quite clear was that teachers were being assisted by a greater number of classroom assistants. I think even the noble Baroness would recognise that many people and many heads recognise there is considerable value in having classroom assistants who can assist the properly qualified, and therefore more expensive, teachers to go about their job.
Secondly, I totally and utterly reject her allegation that we have made cuts in public expenditure. If she makes those remarks from the Opposition Front Bench, she is in effect saying that we are underfunding education and that if her party were in government it would provide more money. That is something it has refused to do. What we have made available to education, as provided by the local education authorities, is something of the order of £1.4 billion extra over the past two years. We have increased spending on pupils since 1979 by some 50 per cent.
It is no use the noble Baroness taking just the past three years. She said the number of pupils had gone up in those years. I never heard those remarks from the noble Baroness and her colleagues when numbers were going down, implying that meant that we could, as it were, reduce funds. The simple fact is we have increased funds per pupil by something of the order of 50 per cent. since 1979 and we have increased funding available to local authorities for schools—not cut it—by some £1.4 billion over the past two years.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: First, I ask the Minister to confirm whether the £1.4 billion increase to which he referred is a £1.4 billion increase on the actual amount of money spent on education by LEAs year on year, or whether it is an increase in the standard spending assessment figure which is the Government's notional figure as to what ought to be spent by LEAs, which they have increased, and which is still below the amount actually spent?

1659
Secondly, I say to the Minister that, of course, it is relevant to take the past three or four years. During the past three or four years pupil numbers in the primary schools have been increasing and government expenditure per pupil in real terms has been falling. Thirdly, where class sizes of young children have been increasing there has been an increase in the use of classroom assistants, but head teachers would want to supplement that by also having the necessary number of fully qualified teachers. My experience of the professional judgment of head teachers is that they do not view it as an either/or situation but regard it as essential to have the right level of both.
The Government ought to consider carefully their record in terms of education. We have heard tonight that the Government are not prepared to rule out selection at primary level in hard, clear, legal terms in this Bill that is before us. By the Government's and Prime Minister's own admission we are failing the average and the majority in this country. What are the Government proposing to do to take the small amount of additional resource that they are able to make available and to give it to those who are succeeding well now?
The time is late. I shall not press the amendment at this stage.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness asks me a question. Therefore I should respond, should I not? That would be fair, would it not?
I begin by apologising to the noble Baroness and to the Committee. I misled her. The figure is not £1.4 billion; it is £1.7 billion. That is the education standard spending assessment. Yes, it is permissible for the authorities to spend more should they so wish.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Will the Minister please tell us how the Government's standard spending assessment for the current financial year compares with what is actually spent by local education authorities?
Lord Henley: I do not have the figures in front of me. As I said, it is open to the authorities to spend more should they so wish. We have made available to the local authorities £1.7 billion more than last year.
Lord Tope: I have some sympathy for the Minister. At this hour of the morning he is having to deal with two members of local education authorities who have some knowledge of the facts. I understand that his briefing for this amendment could not have included the facts.
The Minister keeps telling us that the standard spending assessment has been increased. Apparently it has increased during the course of this debate from £1.4 billion to £1.7 billion. If we carry on at this speed we might get somewhere. Those are notional figures. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked him the actual figure.
Lord Henley: Will the noble Lord give way? I do not consider figures to be notional which are taken out
1660
of my pocket or other taxpayers' pockets. Those are funds transferred from central government, from the taxpayer, to local authorities. As I said, local authorities can spend more, and many do.
Lord Tope: I am sorry to upset the Minister, but the fact remains that when one is in a school with a budget, or running a local education authority, it is not the Minister's back pocket, or whatever, that we are interested in. It is the actual amount of spending. The fact remains that the actual spending on education has not been increased as a result of the Government's measures, especially when taking into account all the additional costs to which the noble Baroness referred—teachers' pay, and so on. The fact is that local education authorities en masse are still spending more than the Government are putting into education funding.
I can understanding that the Minister is getting tired and a little irritated at this time of night. But he is not getting away with it. The Government have not increased funding. This debate is about class sizes. It remains a fact on the Government's own figures that in the last year alone primary school class sizes over 36 increased by 20 per cent. No head teacher does that from choice but because of the Government's funding restrictions.
The Government may well say that it is open to education authorities to increase spending as they may wish. I wonder whether the Minister has heard of something called capping? The Government impose a total spending limit on all local authorities. For those local authorities which are also LEAs that is a major part of their funding. Local authorities may be notionally free to increase spending on education. In actuality they are not because they are capped by this Government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That was an interesting exchange. It would be helpful to have some of the figures which the Minister does not have at his fingertips relating to actual expenditure and the comparison with the Government's target spend. I am sure that they will be handy because I think that the issue will be returned to on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 194:
Before Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
VIEWS OF PUPILS
(" . The governing bodies of schools and local education authorities shall use their best endeavours to secure that

(a) due consideration is given to the views of pupils on any matter which affects them, having regard to the pupils' age and understanding; and

(b) where reasonable, steps are taken to ascertain these views.").

The noble Baroness said: This is a new clause to place schools and LEAs under a duty to listen to the views of pupils on matters affecting them and, where reasonable, to ascertain these views.
What the amendment does not do—I hope that the Government will not imply that it does—is this. It does not require teachers to ask the pupils' opinions on every aspect of schooling. It requires only that pupils' views be ascertained where reasonable. It does not give pupils any powers to make decisions about their education. Having given the pupils' view "due consideration", the teacher is still quite free to do the opposite. It does not mean that pupils' views on matters outside the powers of the school or LEA (e.g. the national curriculum or the state of the road outside the school) have to be considered at all by school or LEA staff, since consideration would not be "due".
What the amendment does is common practice in most good schools and by most good teachers—and increasingly by most good LEAs. It is, at bottom, simple wisdom to take into account any views expressed by those receiving a service (the "customer view" to use government imagery) and, where practicable, to discover those views when they have not been expressed. The resources needed to implement this amendment are negligible. The benefits are very great.
As well as creating more effective schools, the amendment also reflects the provisions of Article 12(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, voluntarily ratified by this Government in 1991. I quote Article 12(1):
"States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the views of the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child".
In addition, it brings education legislation into line with the Children Act provisions requiring courts and social services to consider children's views when making decisions about them.
Versions of this amendment were pressed during the passage of the Education Act 1993. They were rather contemptuously rejected by the responsible Minister, Eric Forth. He argued that education was quite a different matter from Children Act issues. He said:
"It is at least arguable that there is a difference between taking full account of a young person's attitudes and responses in a social and welfare context and asking the child to make a judgment, utter an opinion or give a view on his or her educational requirements".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/93; col. 1108.]
He called the amendment if not "dotty" then "politically correct", and said it would be absurd and unworkable, particularly in regard to primary school pupils Official Report, Commons, 9/2/93; col. 1515.
The Government were challenged over the failure to implement Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The persistent reply was that the Children Act covered the UK's responsibilities under Article 12, despite the fact that the Children Act does not cover schools' or LEAs' functions. At the House of Lords' stage, Allan Levy QC provided an opinion to this effect, but to no avail. The Government continued to say that the Children Act met its duties under Article 12. It was the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the Minister today, who said on that occasion:
1662
"My advice is that there is no conflict between the Education Bill and the UN convention. Article 12 of the convention states that the child shall in particular be provided with the opportunity to he heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child. We believe that the provisions of the Children Act should cater for that. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary to bring us within the ambit of Article l2".—f [Official Report, 20/4/93; col. 1548.]
I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], who was the noble friend referred to by the noble Lord.
As regards Eric Forth's remarks, it is true that there is a difference between children's views about the "social and welfare context" of Children Act decisions and those in the education sphere. The decisions courts and social workers make under the Children Act are some of the most difficult and complex decisions that can be made—education matters are in fact much easier! Secondly, the amendment does not force children to express a view, any more than it forces schools or LEAs to accept those views—it is just about the adults listening and being better informed. Certainly the amendment is neither absurd nor unworkable. Even young children or children with severe learning difficulties should be encouraged to express views and should be listened to when they do.
As regards the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I find them incomprehensible. First, Article 12 covers the views of the child "in all matters affecting the child", not just judicial or administrative proceedings. Secondly, how does the Children Act cater for educational matters or school proceedings? It does not. It has taken four years for these matters to be pursued today. I hope that the Minister will follow my arguments and decide that perhaps he could take a different view today from the one he took four years ago. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady David, on this amendment. It seems to me an idea whose time has come. I ask the Minister to consider whether, for example, in all the new clauses which this Bill introduces with regard to discipline in schools, it is not of immense importance to ensure that the pupils understand what is going on, make their contribution and feel that it is received, understood and taken account of by the teachers in the school. Secondary schools are very large now. Such huge institutions cannot be managed unless there is a general feeling that such things as disciplinary procedures are—to use a term which I do not like very much—"owned" by both the pupils and the teachers.
Lord Henley: This not being another place, I will take a slightly more measured line than my right honourable friend took in Committee in another place. I believe that the noble Baroness's amendment is over-prescriptive. It is not necessary to have this on the face of the Bill.
We have already exhorted schools and LEAs to take account of the views of the individual child when carrying out their duties, particularly in relation to special educational needs. In addition, our circular on pupil behaviour and discipline pointed out the benefits of encouraging pupils to discuss the aims and rules of the school.

1663
In other areas consultation often happens in practice. I believe that the circumstances in which pupils' views are invited should remain a matter for local judgment. Schools and local education authorities are best placed to decide where consultation with pupils is appropriate and how that consultation should take place, bearing in mind the different ages of the children that we might be talking about. The most sensible course of action would be to maintain that discretion.
The noble Baroness again raised the question of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which confers on an individual child the right to be consulted on matters affecting him or her. I do not believe that failure to accept the noble Baroness's amendment would render the United Kingdom Government in breach of the convention. As I have already pointed out, the amendment is about collective rather than individual rights, which is what the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child relates to. I regret to say that I cannot support the noble Baroness's amendment and I hope that she will consider withdrawing it.
Baroness David: I am very disappointed by the Minister's reply and very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for the amendment. I thought that there had been a shift in opinion in the last few years; I thought we had moved nearer to accepting that the views of the child should be considered. It would be very helpful to have it written into the legislation. However, I see that I shall not shift the Minister at this time of night. He shakes his head so it is quite clear that I shall not. I shall consider what I do next but for tonight—or rather this morning—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 195:
Before Clause 63, insert the following new clause
PROVISION FOR NEW DENOMINATIONAL FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGES
(" .—(1) After section 22 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 there shall be inserted
"Provision for new denominational further education colleges.
22A. Notwithstanding anything in sections 18 to 22 of this Act, the instrument of government of a further education corporation which was established to be an institution with a denominational character must provide—

(a) for the governing body of the institution to include persons appointed for the purpose of securing so far as practicable that the denominational character of the institution is preserved and developed and, in particular, that the institution is conducted in accordance with any trust deed relating to it; and

(b) for the majority of members of the governing body to be such governors,

and in this Part of this Act "voluntary college" means such an institution".
(2) In section 44 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (Collective worship), for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—
"(1) In this section "institution of voluntary origin" means a further education institution which—
1664

(a) when it became a further education institution, was a voluntary school or a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school before it became grant-maintained, or

(b) is a voluntary college.".

(3) In section 45 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (Religious education), for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—
"(1) In this section "institution of voluntary origin" means a further education institution which—

(a) when it became a further education institution, was a voluntary school or a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school before it became grant-maintained, or

(b) is a voluntary college.".

(4) Section 27 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (Dissolution of further education corporations) shall he amended as follows—

(a) at the end of subsection (2)(b) there shall be inserted "or

(c) any trustees of the corporation,";

(b) at the end of subsection (4) there shall be inserted "save where the corporation holds property on trusts which are for charitable purposes which are not exclusively educational purposes in which case any property transferred must be transferred on like trusts to those upon which the corporation holds such property."; and

(c) at the end of subsection (7)(b) there shall be inserted ", and

(c) any trustees of the corporation.".").

The right reverend Prelate said: This is a substantial amendment in terms of both the number of words which it would add to the Bill and the issues which lie behind it. It refers to a number of issues, the major one of which is the provision for new denominational further education colleges.
The bulk of denominational education is provided by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church in particular has chosen to deliver much of its sixth-form education through sixth-form colleges, which are in the further education sector and not the secondary sector. The present statutory framework does not provide for the establishment of new denominational colleges in the further education sector, including sixth-form colleges. These amendments provide a means of enabling such a provision to be made. They provide for a further education corporation established to be an institution with a denominational character. That is to be called a voluntary college. It would share the following characteristics with the existing denominational designated institutions: a majority of foundation governors; provisions for collective worship in accordance with the trust deed; and provisions for religious education in accordance with the trust deed.
That is provided for by inserting a new Section 22A into the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which defines the new type of college and provides for foundation governors. This provision mirrors that applying to the existing denominational sixth-form colleges under Section 30. The provisions for collective worship and religious education are provided for by

1665
amending Sections 44(1) and 45(1) respectively to include voluntary colleges in the definition of institutions of voluntary origin in each of those sections.
The other matter dealt within this amendment is the dissolution of a voluntary college. There are three matters which are dealt with by way of amendment to Section 27.
The first is that an addition to Section 27(2) allows the Secretary of State, if it is appropriate, to transfer property to any trustees of the corporation, even if the trustees are not a body corporate. That meets a particular issue which is of concern to the Roman Catholic Church, not least in the matter of transferring property from a religious order to a diocese.
The amendment to Section 27(4) deals with the possibility that a voluntary college may hold property on charitable trusts which are not exclusively for educational purposes. If that is the case, the property must be transferred to the new owner on similar trusts.
The other amendment is an addition to Section 27(7), requiring the Secretary of State to consult any trustees of a further education corporation before making a transfer order under the section.
There has been considerable consultation between officials of the Catholic Education Service, the Department for Education and Employment and the Further Education Funding Council. These proposals have arisen out of those consultations. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to recognise the seriousness of the issue which lies behind them. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We read in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis:
"Let there he light and there was light".
Perhaps the right reverend Prelate can enlighten me. The insertion of new Clause 22A into the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 appears to me to require that a further education college established as:
"an institution with a denominational character",
should have a governing body, a majority of whose members have been appointed to preserve the denominational character of the institution.
The right reverend Prelate no doubt will be able to make clear to me—I myself cannot see it—what that has to do with "new denominational further education colleges", as it appears at the side of Amendment No. 195, which, as the right reverend Prelate said, is of considerable length and some complexity. So, perhaps I may say to him:
"Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee … and … defend us from all perils and dangers of this night".
Lord Henley: In due course I shall leave the right reverend Prelate to respond to those points. But it may assist the Committee if I summarise the current arrangements.
Section 30 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 ensures that the majority of the governing body of a former voluntary aided school is appointed by the relevant trustees. That protection of the religious
1666
interests of the trustees only applies to institutions which were former voluntary-aided schools. What then if there were a need for a new denominational institution which does not have that heritage? In such circumstances, I fully appreciate the concerns of trustees that their interests should be properly protected and that steps should be taken to safeguard those interests.
While I appreciate the concerns that lie behind the amendment, its effect would be to hand over effective control of an institution established by a denomination and conducted by a further education corporation to that denomination. The contribution made by the denomination—if any—to the setting up and running costs of the college would be irrelevant.
That is not the way that the Government have done business with the Churches in the past. The Government would normally expect a significant financial contribution to the costs of the institution to justify an arrangement of that nature. Clearly the implications of this extend not only to the school sector, but also to the higher education sector, which has similar arrangements to the further education sector.
It is also worth considering what "denominational character" is supposed to mean. It would appear to exclude institutions with a Christian ethos but which are not affiliated to a specific denomination. But, equally, it could include non-Christian religions. I am unsure if that was the intention of the amendment.
The Government have sympathy with the aim behind the amendment, but it will not do in its present form. The Government would be willing to consider this matter further, but in view of the very substantial issues that it raises I cannot give any undertaking to come back while the current Bill is before us. However, I would be happy, as would my right honourable friends, to discuss this matter with the right reverend Prelate and those advising him.
1.15 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: At this hour of the night, when darkness is upon us, I am not sure what light I can shed to help the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
The intention of the new section is that an institution may be established which has a denominational character. I take the Minister's points in relation to whether that might exclude Christian colleges or those which have a general Christian intent. But, clearly, the vast bulk of the provision is by denominations, as they are termed in statute. The amendment would enable a further education institution to be established. The term "voluntary college" is used in order to provide a title for this new kind of institution.
Nevertheless, I accept the points which the Minister made, particularly about the arrangements that need to be made with the Churches on this matter. I hope we can return to it, in particular in discussion with the Minister and his right honourable friend. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 196 to 200A not moved.]
Clause 63 [Management committees for pupil referral units]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 200B:
Page 48, line 22, at beginning insert—
("( ) At the beginning of Schedule I to the Education Act 1996 (pupil referral units) there shall be inserted—
" Al. A pupil referral unit shall have as its principal objective the satisfactory reintegration into school after a limited period of pupils referred to it".").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to require pupil referral units to have as their main objective the satisfactory reintegration of pupils into mainstream schools. The organisation of LEA off-site provision for pupils out of school was created under the Education Act 1993 and institutions were so designated from September 1994. In January 1995 there were 286 pupil referral units with 5,043 pupils and a staffing of 1,446 full-time equivalent teachers.
Concern has been expressed about the quality of education at PRUs following an Ofsted inspection report in 1995. Local education authorities have been making progress towards defining the place of their PRUs in the range of provision for pupils in difficulties. Clause 26 requiring LEAs to prepare a plan for children with behavioural difficulties is welcome. The development by Ofsted of an agreed framework for inspection is also welcome.
Current DfEE guidance in Circular 1194—The education by LEAs of children otherwise than at School—notes that for children out of mainstream school,
"the prime aim in respect of all children who are away from school should be to secure their return to mainstream education, including special schools, as soon as practicable".
That advice flows through to all the arrangements for PRUs, including the need not to provide the national curriculum, though there is still a need to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.
The need to get young people who have been excluded from school back into education is paramount. PRUs can provide an effective means of achieving that end through their specialised teaching staff and generous teacher-pupil ratio. The purpose of this amendment is to write into primary legislation a policy objective which is supported by the Government and all other interested bodies. An amendment with the same wording was debated in Standing Committee D in another place on 16th January 1997. The Minister of State, Mr. Forth, was not convinced that there was a need to include in the Bill:
"a form of words which states that reintegration is the principal objective".
He believed that guidelines and the need for flexibility were sufficient. He said that the Government might reconsider the matter if it was found that PRUs were failing to give priority to return pupils to mainstream education. Why wait? Rather than wait and see how
1668
PRUs develop, it would be sensible to see this declaratory amendment put into law now, and I hope the Minister will agree. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I understand the intention behind this amendment and I would agree in general that most PRUs should act, as has been put on another occasion, as a revolving door. However, what the noble Baroness's amendment fails to take into account is the sheer variety of the PRUs and the variety of pupils within them. There are currently 328 PRUs. Their intakes vary considerably. Pupils may, for example, have been excluded; they may be persistent non-attenders, suffering from neurotic disorders, including school phobia; they may be pregnant or young mothers and unable to attend ordinary school; or they may have other characteristics.
I would accept that in general most younger pupils excluded from school who have not yet embarked on their GCSE courses should be returned to school—and this might sometimes be a special school—as soon as possible. However, I do not think I could accept the noble Baroness's point that it would always be appropriate, or the primary function of a PRU, automatically to aim at reintegrating all the older disaffected pupils when they might be better integrated into another setting. Similarly, I do not think it would be right to require the return to a mainstream school of, say, an 11 year-old mother who was successfully pursuing her studies in a PRU.
What matters in these cases is that a judgment has to be made of what would be the most suitable educational progression for the individual pupil. While I am sympathetic to the wording of this amendment and its declaratory tone, I have to say that one could not put in declaratory words of that sort if it was only in certain circumstances that that was going to be the prime object or the principal objective of the PRU, because many of them will have other objectives for other pupils.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wonder whether I could press the Minister to see whether there might possibly on Report be a form of wording that would satisfy my noble friend Lady David and overcome the difficulties to which the Minister referred. Such a form of words could refer to, "unless quite clearly not in the interests of the pupil through, for example, age, pregnancy or a severe medical problem". I do not mean that a comprehensive list should be given, but perhaps it could be made absolutely clear that in the case of 10 or 11 year-olds the prime objective was to achieve a return to mainstream education. It ought to be possible for us to achieve what is wanted and to overcome the quite legitimate objections and the valid points raised by the Minister.
Lord Henley: On Report I shall obviously be prepared to consider amendments tabled by either noble Baroness should they wish to do so. However, I believe that they would find it difficult to draft provisions in the manner they have suggested. That is often one of the dangers of having declaratory principles in Bills—

1669
although they are sometimes desirable, as we all accept. I leave it entirely to either or to both noble Baronesses to do their best.
Baroness David: I thank my noble friend for her support and advice. I also thank the Minister because that was not a wholly unsympathetic reply. I should like to read in Hansard what he has said. It may be that we can cook up another amendment, but with slightly different words, for the next stage of the Bill, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 200C:
Page 48, leave out lines 37 and 38.
The noble Baroness said: As I did not think that this amendment quite fitted with Amendment No. 200B, I thought that it might be better if I spoke to it separately. The amendment seeks to find out why the consent of the Secretary of State is required before a joint committee is established for two or more PRUs.
Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, which includes provision for the establishment of pupil referral units, defines PRUs as a school established and maintained by a local education authority. Quite rightly, there is no role for the Secretary of State in the establishment, change or closure of PRUs. It would clearly be ridiculous for the Secretary of State to be involved in the approval or otherwise of decisions to establish PRUs. It would reduce the flexibility of PRUs to be organised to meet the continuing development of need in an area. This is not to say that under other powers the Secretary of State should not collect information on LEA practice on the establishment of PRUs, which is a proper exercise of her role and provides valuable feedback to LEAs on the development of this new type of school. What we want to know is why the Secretary of State's consent is required before a joint committee is established. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise briefly to support the amendment. Intervening in such situations seems a curious use of the Secretary of State's power, particularly when the Government's mood is what one might call "deregulatory".
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may respond briefly. The Government believe that in most cases there should be a separate management committee for each unit. We believe that that is the best way to ensure proper management and oversight of most units. The Secretary of State will be setting out in guidance the factors that she will take into account in deciding whether to approve any particular arrangement of LEAs coming together, but her principal or long-stop role will be to provide that necessary safeguard against joint committees being established solely for the administrative convenience of the LEAs and not leaving it as we think it normally—I stress "normally"—ought to be, which is that there should be a separate management committee for each unit.
Baroness David: I cannot say that I am convinced by the Minister's answer. It seems to me that this is not a
1670
role for the Secretary of State, but at this hour of the morning, I shall not continue with that argument and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 49, line 1, after ("(including") insert ("voluntary and").
The right reverend Prelate said: In contrast to the last amendment that I moved, this is brief and, I hope, crystal clear. It refers to the joint management committees which we have just discussed and in particular to the requirement for such committees to include persons representing schools, including grant-maintained schools. This amendment would add voluntary schools to the grant-maintained group. Clearly, voluntary schools are greater in number than grant-maintained schools and if there is an argument for including grant-maintained schools in such a committee, that argument must surely extend to the voluntary sector also. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I do not know how far the right reverend Prelate wished to go in his amendment, but it would mean only that the Secretary of State in making regulations may include a specific requirement about representatives from voluntary schools, not that she must. That is no substantive advance on the provisions already in paragraph 15(2)(c) inserted by Clause 63. That already allows for the regulations to make provision for the composition of a management committee, including representatives of local schools.
It might be useful if I explain why there is a reference on the face of the Bill to grant-maintained schools and not to voluntary schools or indeed any other category of school. This was necessary to remove any doubts about the vires of regulations that would require local education authorities which maintained PRUs to include on their units' management committees representatives of schools not maintained by the LEA. The same considerations do not apply to voluntary schools. I hope that that satisfies the right reverend Prelate.
1.30 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall read his reply carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 201A:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND AND WALES
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body to be known as the General Teaching Council for England and Wales.
(2) A body established under this section shall have the functions of advising the Secretary of State as to the following—

(a) rules and guidance as to the professional conduct and discipline of teachers;

(b) the qualifications to be required of persons seeking to become or remain teachers;

1671

(c) the professional development and appraisal of teachers;

(d) such matters, including matters relating to education or the employment of teachers or other persons connected with education, as the Council may consider relevant to the promotion of good teaching in England and Wales; and

(e) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant.").

The noble Lord said: We have today discussed many important issues. The establishment of a general teaching council is probably one of the most important issues that we shall discuss today, at least for the teaching profession. Late though the hour is, I believe that we must spend a little time on it to do it justice. It was discussed at considerable length in the other place at various stages. In the other place the Minister, Mr. Eric Forth, said in Committee:
"The time for a GTC may have come".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/97; co1.653.]
If I correctly recall, in the Second Reading debate in this Chamber the Minister was not entirely unsympathetic to the idea of a general teaching council and felt that the time might well have come for it. This is the opportunity. The purpose of this amendment is to require the establishment of a general teaching council.
There is a strong body of professional opinion that supports the notion that something must be done to raise the morale and status of the teaching profession. I now meet a large number of teachers both at home and by virtue of my duties in your Lordships' House. I am constantly struck by just how low morale is in the teaching profession. It is too late—and perhaps this is not the time—to discuss why that is so but that it is is beyond doubt. A front page story in The Times Educational Supplement on 10th January of this year reported a survey that had been carried out by that newspaper which showed that morale was at an all-time low. Teachers felt oppressed by perpetual public criticism and believed that their professionalism was undermined by government interference, constant change and not knowing where they were. More teachers are retiring early through stress-related illness and other reasons than ever before.
No one defends poor teachers or poor performance. That applies most of all to teachers themselves, who in my experience are generally most critical of bad teachers. No one argues that incompetence should be condoned. But generalised abuse of an entire profession, as is practised in some parts of the press, fails to address the shortcomings of the small minority of poor teachers. Instead, it depresses and casts down the great majority of good and competent professionals. Commercial management practice and educational theory agree that praise for good work and encouragement for individuals to take responsibility for their own development raise morale and performance at the same time. I contrast that with the words, too often repeated, of the chief inspector, who seems to believe that thousands of teachers should be sacked. I do not believe that that does anything for the morale of a profession that already feels deeply under-appreciated.
The creation of a GTC will empower teachers themselves to take charge of raising the quality and standards of the profession. There is every reason to expect that that will do more to raise professional standards and boost the quality of recruits to the profession than any amount of hectoring from the Government and the tabloid press. This development is urgently needed not only because standards of teaching need to be improved but because there is a danger of a teacher shortage developing.
As the economy picks up—we are constantly assured that it will—disaffected and demoralised teachers will leave the profession in even greater numbers for areas of employment where their skills are appreciated, while teacher training institutes will fail in the competition with other employers for good graduates to replace them.
During debate in another place there was general agreement of the need to raise educational standards by improving the quality of the work of individual classroom teachers. The Minister in the other place conceded that a GTC could make a contribution towards raising the morale and status of the teaching profession. Objections raised by Ministers included whether the body need to be statutory, the possibility of public subsidy, and how it might relate to existing statutory bodies with responsibilities in the same field.
The first query was whether, given the widespread support for the idea, such a body needed to be set up by statute. The answer is clearly in the affirmative for reasons that flow from the nature of the organisation and its necessary status and functions. To begin with, if it is to police professional conduct and discipline it must be universal in its coverage, and it must be able to apply sanctions. For such a duty to be discharged effectively, there cannot be an opportunity for the small number of teachers who may need to be subject to discipline to avoid it merely by opting out of the organisation.
On Report in the other place, it was argued that the amendment would require only that the GTC advise the Secretary of State, and therefore would not have such executive functions. The normal approach for a professional body is that being struck off the register effectively prevents that individual from being allowed to practise the profession. Given that control of access to the teaching profession is currently in the hands of the Secretary of State, and that there is no immediate proposal to change that, the amendment is phrased in the way that it is. However, it is easy to see how the internal process of a GTC to register or deregister an individual could be linked administratively with the award or removal of qualified teacher status by the DfEE. Thus, although for legal purposes the GTC would be advising the Secretary of State, it would in practice be the gatekeeper of the professional status of teachers.
There exists already a number of professional associations for teachers to join on a voluntary basis. While those bodies do much good work to promote better professional standards, they are in business primarily to protect the interests of their members. Significantly, the teacher associations are strong supporters of the establishment of a statutory GTC.
They recognise that it must be a fundamentally different organisation from themselves. Significantly, there is already a voluntary organisation called the General Teaching Council which exists to promote the creation of a statutory GTC. It is widely supported by organisations representing teachers, their employers, and the wider community. It recognises that its objectives cannot be achieved by an expansion of voluntary activity.
All of us say that education is our top priority. If that is the case, then the people who deliver education must be among our top professionals. It is long past the time that we need to recognise and value them as professionals, treat them as professionals, and to give them their own proper professional body in a general teaching council. Although it is late, I end where I started by saying that I believe that this is one of the most important amendments we are discussing today. A favourable wind today, even at this late hour, will send a message to the teaching profession, which will probably do more than anything else we have said tonight, important though that has been, to lift morale and start them on the road back to the proper professional status that they should enjoy. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I rise, inspired by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He is absolutely right in saying that although this is a late hour this issue is so important that it cannot be given short time. I am delighted that he has mentioned the question of the minority of poor teachers—we have read enough about them in the press—but nothing in the Bill deals with that. It appears to be in no one's sphere of responsibility; all cases are individual. The famous 15,000 dud teachers immortalised by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector are, as we have heard, neither sacked nor succoured. If one thing is worse than being either sacked or succoured it is being ignored. To that extent, the minority of poor teachers—and there is always a minority or poor teachers—are getting away with murder while the Government shilly-shally and do nothing at all about it.
The noble Lord drew attention to the words of Mr. Forth in Standing Committee D on 16th January 1997 and quoted a short phrase. Perhaps I may quote rather more. Mr. Forth said:
"The time for a general teaching council may have come and such a body may make the contribution that the honourable Member for Walton described. However, several fundamental questions would need an answer before we could progress on the lines set out in the new clause. For example, if there is such a groundswell of demand among teachers for a council, does it need to be created by statute?".
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, dealt with that simply; the answer is yes. Mr. Forth continued:
"Could it not be created by popular support among teachers? Related to that point is the issue of funding, which is not covered in the new clause. The honourable gentleman might say that it does not need to be at this stage. Would the body have to he funded by taxpayers' money or could it be funded by teachers' subscription?".
Note the grim and grinding reference to the taxpayers' pocket being introduced into this stage.
1674
The Minister inquired about funding, asking whether the GTC would require public subsidy. The answer is emphatically no. It would not only be unnecessary, it would be undesirable. Independent funding for a GTC would be one guarantee of the independence of the body. Perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord how it would work. There are approximately half a million teachers in this country. If they were all required to pay a registration fee of just a few pounds per year the GTC would very quickly achieve an adequate budget for its relatively modest costs.
The universal requirement for teachers to register would simultaneously keep the fee to a low level and ensure that the organisation was independent of government without becoming a creature of a mass voluntary membership. It could thereby be both professionally independent and rigorous on standards. This is another reason why the idea requires a statutory basis to work. Teachers have made it abundantly clear that they would subscribe willingly the small registration fee necessary for the benefits that would accrue, as they do in Scotland.
It was pointed out on Report in another place that there may be a need for a one-off grant to enable the GTC to get off the ground before the subscription income can be collected, and that this would have to come out of the taxpayers' back pocket. I hold up my hands and say that that is true. I cannot deny it; I concede it. But the sums would be so insignificant as not to matter and they would represent no permanent drain on public funds.
The Minister in another place also questioned how the GTC would relate to the Teacher Training Agency. It is true that a GTC would be operating in the territory now occupied by the TTA, but it would perform a complementary role. They would not be in opposition. The TEA. is charged with spending public money on the recruitment, initial training and continuing professional development of teachers. That is fine; that is clear. It is a vitally important function. Since its inception it has, quite properly, conducted wide consultation on the discharge of its functions. The GTC is emphatically not a creature of government and would not be concerned with spending decisions. But it would be an extremely useful source of consultation and provide a mechanism for the dissemination of ideas and good practice. It would also have a breadth and legitimacy, through its broad representation, to gain respect for its work on upholding professional standards that a small appointed body, however well managed, would be jolly hard-pressed to emulate.
The question of the composition of the body was also raised as a conceivable possible theoretical objection by the Minister in another place. The Minister in another place asked how and by whom representatives on the council would be elected or appointed. It is true that that is not specified in the amendment, which in practice leaves the matter for the Secretary of State to decide. The shadow GTC, the unofficial body which has given itself that name, has a number of proposals on that point.

1675
There are also a range of existing bodies which could provide a model on which the GTC could be based and there would be scope for the Secretary of State to consult with interested parties before setting up a GTC to comply with this clause.
Finally, the Minister in another place accepted that the idea had merit, but he was worried about the various difficulties which he outlined and he felt that they needed to be resolved before the matter could progress. There may well be questions of detail to be resolved. There must be; there always are. But this new clause deals only in the broad principle which the Minister, Mr. Forth, said that he accepts. The detail would be for the Secretary of State to determine in implementation, if there is the political will to do it.
There are no serious obstacles that could not easily be overcome. The proposal has greater support and fewer intrinsic problems than almost any of the educational innovations forced through by this Government in the recent past. There cannot be any serious objection to the inclusion of this sensible reform in the Bill. The extent to which those speaking on behalf of the Government at earlier stages of this Bill have made heavy weather of trivial objections suggests that there must be reasons why the Government are hostile to this proposal. If so, we should like to know what they are. But if the Government accept the principle, will the Minister agree to bring back his own amendments, with the technical issues discussed and resolved, so that we can all go ahead with what everybody in the profession seems to think is a vitally important innovation which will do more than anything else, except money, to raise morale?
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Warnock: Having campaigned for 12 years for a general teaching council—and this is an idea that has been tried over and over again—I must rise to support the amendment.
I make just two points. At present the recruitment of teachers is falling to a new low. It is not just that the numbers are small but the quality of people coming forward to teach is dropping. Many people who go to even the best teacher training colleges, such as Homerton in Cambridge, which is part of the university, up to a point, go there against the wishes of their parents and the advice of their teachers. When they get there, they really prove themselves not to be of the quality in many cases that one would want of members of a profession on whom so much depends. It is not possible to raise the standard of recruits to the teaching profession without a change in the status in society of teachers.
My second point is simply to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said which I believe to be absolutely true. When a government or, indeed, all of us in this country genuinely want to raise the standards of education, how can it be right that we should not manifestly show that we respect, value and trust the people who deliver education? Unless we have a statutory body which is self-regulating in the profession,
1676
we will not be showing that we trust its membership. I strongly support the amendment and only wish that it had not come up the day after it should have done.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I should like briefly to support the amendment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made out a compelling case which has been made even stronger by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. There is low morale and a perception that status is not what it should be. There is also a very wide recognition that the establishment of a general teaching council would do a great deal to put matters right. The Churches have been glad to be involved in consultations about its structure.
Lord Henley: I accept, as my right honourable friend said in another place, that there has been some agreement throughout the profession that a professional body, which would allow the teaching profession to speak with one voice on key issues, could play a useful role. I thought that we were speaking to both amendments which reflect that but, as we are really debating general principles, I need not focus on one or the other. Nevertheless, they reflect to some extent the fact that there is not, as yet, total agreement on what form such a body should take even if, as I said, the debate in the other place showed that there is broad support for the principle across all parties.
As has been quoted on a number of occasions, my right honourable friend did not rule out the establishment of a statutory body, but stressed that whether or not such a statutory body is required would depend on the answers to a number of key questions. Those key questions have been repeated several times in the course of this debate. However, what I found rather interesting in the TES last Friday or Saturday was that even Mr. Doug McAvoy of the NUT, in an article entitled, "Beware Ministers Bearing Promises", repeated those questions, expressing doubts about the creation of such a body and saying that those questions have to be answered before one can progress down such a route.
I shall repeat those questions again. For example, what functions would the body have? That is very important. How would its members be elected or chosen? It is no good the noble Lord saying that I must accept the amendments or accept them in principle and then come back in two weeks with agreement across the entire profession as to exactly how these matters could be dealt with. What would its relation be with other bodies such as the teacher unions? We have all agreed that we can only do this if we have the general support of teacher unions. I certainly gain the impression from Mr. McAvoy's article that we do not have his support for what has been proposed. What would that body's relations be with the TTA?
Those are very important questions and ones which will have to be asked in due course. As I said, my right honourable friend did not rule out the establishment of such a statutory body, but I do not think that now is the time to address such matters. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot provide the comfort that either noble Lord wanted between now and the Report stage. I leave the

1677
noble Lord with the questions which he can contemplate in due course as he further considers the setting up of such a body.
Lord Tope: I said at the beginning that this was arguably one of the most important issues to be debated tonight and I am delighted that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has chosen to join us thus indicating, somewhat to my surprise, its importance. Nevertheless, it is a very welcome surprise. I suspect that the noble Viscount was as surprised as I was to hear that the Minister is unwilling to go ahead with the proposal because there is not "total agreement" upon it. I was not aware that the Government were ever inhibited in going ahead with what they wanted to do because there was not total agreement among those who will be affected. However, if that is the principle that the Minister is now establishing then that at least is welcome even at this late hour.
Another first has also been established. Certainly in the time that I have taken part in education debates in this Chamber, I cannot ever remember the Minister quoting the NUT in his support. I tend to think that it is perhaps a measure of desperation that the Minister quotes Mr McAvoy's views and says that because Mr McAvoy feels as he does, then he must be right and the Minister must agree. I rather feel that tonight we have won the argument but perhaps for the time being lost the battle. I think we all acknowledge it is an important issue; it will not go away and it will be brought back. However, in view of the late hour, I shall not press the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Power to make regulations: teachers not under contract of employment and persons having access to those under 19]:
[Amendment No. 201B not moved.]
Clause 64 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 201C not moved.]
Clause 65 [Recoupment by local education authority of costs of teachers' premature retirement]:
[Amendments Nos. 201D to 201F not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Lord Butterfield Lord Butterfield moved Amendment No. 202:
After Clause 65. insert the following new clause—
PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTION OF TEACHERS
(". The Secretary of State may, by order, make provision for the establishment of an independent Professional Institution of Teachers, including a contribution to the costs of setting up such an institution.").
The noble Lord said: I am anxious to bring this matter forward as an idea in parallel to the question of the establishment of a general teaching council. This institution would encourage teachers to progress intellectually. It is an idea which has been in the air for some time. I remember discussing it with the right honourable John Patten when he was Secretary of State for Education some five or six years ago when we were wrestling with the question of the establishment of a
1678
general teaching council. Even then it was clear to many of us that such a body was needed in parallel with a general teaching council. In many ways such a body seems comparable to the General Medical Council in my profession. We realised that, just as the medical and other professions needed, in parallel with the General Medical Council, the Royal Colleges to ensure the proper monitoring of standards, so there would be a need for some kind of institution in the teaching profession which would provide a stimulus for teachers to improve their knowledge and have a way of recording it and having it recognised.
There has been much discussion of the need for an organisation for teachers to associate themselves with to gain status with the public for their abilities in their subject, be it mathematics or geography. I should tell the Committee that the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who was unfortunately out of the country and so not able to add his name to this amendment, and perhaps even lead the discussion, has been calling meetings of a small group—not a conspiratorial group—which has been frank and open in its views and which has consulted many bodies about the possibility of establishing the institution mentioned in the amendment.
Of course it should be recognised by all of us that there has been for many years—nigh on a century—the College of Preceptors. That organisation has provided teachers who wanted to show their ability in their subject with some kind of recognition or certification of their ability to meet certain standards. This was particularly useful to those teachers who were going to Commonwealth countries such as India or Australia, or wherever else it might be. They could add this certification to their general qualifications in the teaching profession. In a way, the College of Preceptors is a role model for those of us who have joined the discussions of the group of my noble friend Lord Caldecote about the future for the teaching profession in this matter. It is important that I convey to the Committee that all the eight to 10 people in the group are absolutely convinced that it is vital for teachers to have better recognition. All the remarks made about the need for a general teaching council to improve teachers' morale are equally applicable to the establishment of an institution which will give recognition to the teachers' ability in their subjects.
I cannot understand how we as a nation have allowed ourselves to get into such a state of criticism, harassing the teaching profession as we do. We must all appreciate that unless teachers have our confidence and our recognition for their abilities, it is highly unlikely that the children they are trying to teach will have the right attitude towards them as individuals and as leaders of morality, ethics and learning in our society. It is for that reason that I am keen that we establish an institution such as that referred to in the amendment.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that it is inevitable that I should feel this way as a member of the medical profession. If I were a nurse, the same would be true. In both those professions there are organisations comparable with the general teaching council for the control of the profession. Sadly, we have to register. Sadly, we have to have ways of disciplining ourselves

1679
when there is bad behaviour or bad practice. But in addition, there have to be ways in which people who have joined the profession can push ahead and climb a ladder of achievement to gain recognition that they are striving for quality in their teaching and knowledge of their subject. I hope that the Committee will find the amendment reasonable and support it.
Many people inside and outside the teaching profession recognise and support the idea of an institution such as that referred to in the amendment and supported by my noble friend Lord Caldecote and his group. I beg to move.
2 a.m.
Viscount Caldecote: I strongly support the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Butterfield for his remarks.
There is no doubt that we all agree that teaching is an important profession. It is arguable that it is the most important profession because it affects every aspect of our lives, whether at work or play. The highest achievable standards are vital to the well-being of the whole community. Like my noble friend Lord Butterfield, I find it amazing, and a matter of serious concern, that alone among important professions there is no independent professional institution of teachers, run by teachers, such as exists in other important professions like medicine, to which my noble friend referred, engineering and accountancy. In Australia, there is the example of the Australian College of Education. It is just that: a professional institution of teachers.
A similar professional institution for teachers would provide a focus for excellence in every sense for maintaining the highest standards in training, in the classroom and in professional conduct. As it developed, teachers would come to aspire to membership of it. I hope that eventually it would become a "Royal College of Teachers". But in any case such an institution would generate a greater feeling of unity and comradeship within the profession of teaching and it would contribute to higher morale, a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I entirely and very strongly agree with him on the importance of that. It would contribute to higher morale and a better public recognition of this most important profession.
When this institution is fully established it must be self-financing, as are similar institutions in other professions. But substantial expenditure would be required in the first few years of its formative stages before it became self-supporting. I hope that the Government will show support for such an independent professional institution. I hope the amendment will also enable the Secretary of State to contribute to the initial setting-up costs.
I therefore most warmly commend Amendment No. 202 to the Committee. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel able to reply sympathetically to this proposal. I am given extra hope that he might be able to do so as a result of his
1680
comments during our debate on Amendment No. 164B. He emphasised the importance of the role played by professional chartered bodies in maintaining standards.
There is element of "chicken and egg" in this situation. Such an institution must have the full support of teachers. But Her Majesty's Government should give a lead on this important issue. That in itself will help to encourage the support of teachers.
I was not able to speak on Amendment No. 201A. However, as it was grouped with this amendment I hope that the Committee will feel that it is in order for me to say just a few words in connection with that amendment, which was withdrawn. I have no objection whatever to the setting up of a general teaching council for England and Wales similar to, but not the same as, the Scottish General Teaching Council, which has done valuable work. However, I rather doubt the wisdom of setting it up as a statutory body—though I shall not become involved in the detail of that tonight.
We must be clear that the general teaching council would not be a professional institution of teachers, with members elected by teachers on the basis of their academic qualifications and experience as teachers, as happens in other professions. As my noble friend Lord Butterfield emphasised, councils similar to the proposed GTC exist in medicine (the General Medical Council) and in engineering (the Engineering Council). But the valuable contribution which both those bodies and similar ones make would not be possible without the support of the professional institutions such as the Royal Colleges in medicine and the engineering institutions.
The establishment of a professional institution of teachers and a general teaching council should be urgently progressed side by side, with the highest priority given to the professional institution simply because of its essential supporting role for a GTC and the fact that it would be more difficult to form.
Perhaps the best outcome of this debate would be for Her Majesty's Government and my noble friend on the Front Bench to accept the principle of both these amendments. We have not the time to go into all the details tonight. I should be very happy to discuss them with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I hope that he will accept the principle of both these amendments and perhaps bring forward at Report stage an appropriate amendment to promote the formation of both these bodies, the GTC and the professional institution for teachers.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may speak very briefly in support of this amendment without repeating any of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, have said except that the importance of the teaching profession in our society can hardly be over-rated.
I have some experience, as a former member of a hospital trust board, of appointing senior medical professional people, with the assistance of representatives from the relevant Royal College, and know the kind of activity of which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, spoke. I should like to make one additional point. One of the things which is not quite right in the

1681
teaching profession at present is the fact that the teacher who remains in the classroom as a highly qualified teacher somehow has less prestige than the teacher who moves towards the more administrative side. I believe that the suggestions put forward tonight would reverse that position and give greater prestige and authority to the really outstanding classroom teacher. There is almost no one more important in any school.
Baroness Warnock: I believe that the present time would be very good for the setting up of such an institution as has been discussed. A great deal of energy goes into professional development, to which all employers of teachers are committed. This goes together with the assessment of teachers inside the schools which is now highly professional and efficient. A great deal of time and money is spent on this development and on INSET courses, either long courses or day courses. However, teachers themselves complain that INSET courses are by and large unfocused and do not lead to anything. They may generate a few bright ideas which come back into the school but nothing very much happens with them after a few months or a year or so.
If there were an institution for whose awards teachers could systematically work while teaching and attending courses, it would make an enormous difference to the development of teachers' professional status, as well as giving them motivation to get more out of their courses and for the courses themselves to be better focused and directed from above by an institution of the kind we have heard of. I believe that the time is very good for the setting up of such an institution.
2.15 a.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I have been wondering all day why the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, was not moving any of the interesting amendments in his name in the Marshalled List. I wondered too at the absence of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, whom I have known and worked with since we were both humble lecturers in the University of Sheffield. All I can say now is that what we have heard was well worth waiting for. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord said. I did not know what he was going to say; we on these Benches had a little thought as to what it was he was putting forward and whether it was a rival body to the one that we were talking about, the general teaching council, or not. Clearly he has made a powerful case for a parallel body.
I listened with great interest to what has developed into an important debate and with deep regret and sadness that we are reduced to debating this important issue at this ridiculous hour, with so few Members of the Committee present to hear what we have to say. If the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, in a fit of pique, should decide to call a Division on this issue tonight, I wonder whether sufficient noble Lords would muster. It must be almost tempting. This situation has arisen because we were denied a fourth Committee day for this Bill. We fought for it, argued for it and negotiated for it. In the end we pleaded for it. But we did not obtain it.
1682
All day we have not moved dozens of important amendments. But we have still ended up with this great issue at a quarter past two in the morning, with a virtually empty Chamber. The amendment should have been given a fairer hearing.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may intervene at this time. If the noble Lord wishes to come in later, he can certainly do so. I just want to respond briefly to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I appreciate that the hour is late and the noble Lord has been very forbearing. But noble Lords will also appreciate that he has taken somewhat excessive time over just one or two amendments on earlier occasions on other days.
I shall deal with the amendment briefly. I appreciate the concerns of my noble friends and that my noble friend Lord Renfrew also wished to speak but was unable to be present. I addressed the points earlier on Amendment No. 201A and exactly the same questions have to be put as would be asked if one were suggesting setting up a general teaching council.
Having said that, as my right honourable friend said on another occasion, the time might have come for such a body or for such a body as the GTC. The time might also have come for two such parallel bodies. That is another matter, but I do not feel that it is a matter that we can address at this stage in the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: As a number of noble Lords have said, we are engaged in a serious and important debate this evening. I was interested by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and the other noble Lord who spoke from that side of the Committee. Both of them referred to examples—on one side the General Medical Council and on the other side the Engineering Council—in which bodies were made up of individual Royal Colleges on the one hand and separate engineering institutions on the other.
I wonder whether this amendment is fully adequate to cope with the full range of professional aptitudes and experience within the teaching profession. If the amendment were to read:
"a number of independent professional institutions of teachers",
it might make more logical sense.
Rather differently from the two examples already given, one can see within the teaching profession a number of discrete specialties but constituted in a different way. One can think in terms of the specialty of primary school teachers; the specialty of secondary/high school teachers, maybe in terms of the specialty of a subject; the specialty of teachers in further education; and teachers in universities. Maybe the different professional bodies within the broad context of a general teaching council might be differently constituted. I wonder, in the deliberations that have obviously taken place and will no doubt continue, whether some consideration of the organisations that currently exist within the broad teaching profession might be taken on board.
If one looks at the various trade unions within the broad spectrum of the general teaching professions, one can see that there is a preponderance of membership

1683
within the elements I have already mentioned. That is perhaps one of the ways in which we can develop a consensus for how we can go forward in what is emerging as a need for the ability to bring together the broad spectrum of the teaching professions, encompassing everyone within a general teaching council but incorporating different specialities within specific institutions or colleges. I hope that in the context—admittedly the hour is late—of the seriousness of this debate, Members of the Committee opposite will take these points on board.
Viscount Caldecote: Perhaps I can say briefly that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell; but there is a real danger of fragmentation. If we do not have just one body, we lose many of the advantages put forward by my noble friend Lord Butterfield. Many professional institutions deal with the problem of different specialities by having different divisions or different sections. That is a much better way of dealing with the situation than having a greater fragmentation.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for introducing this enormously important amendment. The interest it has generated in your Lordships' Chamber is an indication of the importance of the issue.
For some years I have been involved in the formulation of a proposal for a general teaching council. But this suggestion came as a new idea to me, as I suspect it did to others in your Lordships' Chamber and I am wrestling with the implications of it.
I should like to make just one observation. I hope that any professional institution would not simply be concerned with academic qualifications. We can take the parallel made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, of royal societies. They are in the primary business of healing and academic qualifications are in order to further that aim. A professional institution of teachers would surely be stimulating teachers to be recognised in the chief thrust of what they do; that is, to inspire, to excite, as well as to impart knowledge and to lead people on. I hope that the aims of such an institution would not only be a greater head knowledge, but also a greater sense of wisdom and of the way in which young people can be encouraged to learn and be drawn onwards through education.
Lord Butterfield: We heard a very important contribution from the right reverend Prelate. I am extremely grateful to him. I should like to make clear that it is important to both my noble friend Lord Caldecote and myself that features other than just the brain are incorporated in what we hope will evolve into people's appreciation that we have a wonderful lot of people in our teaching professions and they should not be kicked around any more.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, will not be surprised if I say that I am very piqued. I would put this whole matter to a Division except that I feel that, as a relatively new Member of this Chamber, I would rather curry
1684
favour with the Minister in the hope that I can make some progress with the general idea, than irritate him with a Division. I hope the Minister will take that as a genuine compliment in our belief in his ability to lead us through the present waters into smoother waters and better times for the teaching profession. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 202A:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
STAFFING OF SCHOOLS WHERE DELEGATION HAS BEEN SUSPENDED
(" —(1) In section 133 of the Education Act 1996, at the end of subsection (4) there shall be inserted "except that, where delegation has been suspended under section 117, the local education authority may also suspend the provisions of the Articles of Government specified in Schedule 13.".").
The noble Baroness said: We move almost from the sublime, but not to the ridiculous. Amendment No. 202A is about giving power to local authorities to enable them to make staffing changes in schools when delegation has been suspended. There is no current power for that to happen.
When the issue was debated in Standing Committee D at its final sitting, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, in responding to the proposal for the new clause, gave two reasons for resisting a change to the law. She cited the Government's review of local management of schools, which she stated she did not want to pre-empt. She offered the view that there might be a better way of changing the present law than that proposed in the new clause. Again, she stated that the Government did not wish to pre-empt the review the Government were undertaking.
It is quite a serious situation, when a school is in difficulties and delegation has been suspended, that the educational authority cannot go into the school and make what may be considered to be essential staffing changes as a first step in getting the school back on to the right road. It appears that the Government are not prepared to make provision now to avoid the risk of an LEA being unable to make these essential staffing changes in a school which has fallen into difficulty. I should like to ask the Minister how the review of the local management of schools is going and whether, either now or at Report, he will be in a position either to support the principle of this amendment or to produce a Government amendment to respond to the point I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I think my honourable friend Mrs. Gillan, during Committee proceedings in another place, expressed some sympathy for the clause when it was considered. The pre-LMS staffing provisions of Schedule 13 of the 1936 Act clearly were not originally designed for a school where delegation had been suspended but, as my honourable friend made clear when this was considered, we are inclined on balance to resist this sort of new clause for the following reasons. First, as she said on that occasion, we are undertaking a review of LMS and would prefer to consider this measure as part of that review. I would say to the noble

1685
Baroness that does not allow us to come forward with something on Report or Third Reading. We would also want to consult all the relevant interests, having completed that review, rather than rush into legislation. We would also need to think about whether LEAs should remain under some kind of duty to consult governing bodies of schools from which they have suspended delegation.
Perhaps I could make one other point, but I do not know whether it is helpful or not to the noble Baroness. The clause that she is putting forward does not in fact necessarily represent the best way of changing the law. It would be possible to achieve the effect of her proposal by a simplification of the law—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Morris, would prefer a simplification of the law in order to reduce the number of words we have on the statute book—involving the repeal of Schedule 13 and some consequential amendments. Briefly, I say to the noble Baroness that I do not think it is necessary to legislate urgently on this. The suspension of delegation is rare, and LEAs can often find ways of dealing with problem schools, short of suspending delegation. I do not think there is a case for rushing into legislation in advance of the review and the appropriate consultation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We on these Benches support this amendment. Could I press the Minister to give us further information about the review of LMS? Ever since the LMS scheme was introduced there have been deep and bitter complaints from schools because one of the central features of the LMS scheme, as introduced by the Government, is that schools must by law be funded at the average cost of teachers' salaries, which is grossly unfair to a school which has a stable and long-standing staff who do not receive in their budget formula the actual cost of employing the teachers who are on that staff. A school which has a large number of younger members of staff, perhaps because it has only recently been established, is in the opposite position of receiving more.
That means that when a school with a larger number of older, more experienced teachers, seeks to appoint a replacement for a teacher who is leaving, it is forced to consider not appointing the best teacher for the job, but the person who will come most cheaply in an attempt to reduce its overall staffing costs, for which, by law, its LEA is not allowed to recompense it. Think of the tragedy for a small primary school where that applies and where the problem could be at its most stark. The person who is leaving may be the one responsible for co-ordinating maths teaching yet the best applicant for the job may exacerbate that government-created problem.
It is my recollection that as long as three years ago—and possibly longer—Mr. Gummer gave an assurance that the review was imminent and that the time was ripe for looking at such problems, which had been forecast. I believe that the Secretary of State at that time was not noted for always being conciliatory when listening to other points of view. I wonder whether we could have the exact details of when the review was established, what its terms of reference are, who is taking part in it and when we can expect the report.
2.30 a.m.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness will remember last June's White Paper in which we put forward a number of proposals, many of which made their way into the Bill in due course. One proposal which did not was that for making alterations to LMS when looking for a greater degree of delegation of money from the local authorities to the schools. We recognised that that was a complex issue. Will the noble Baroness listen to what I have to say before attempting to intervene? We recognised that a number of issues needed discussing and that is why we are discussing with the local authorities all those complex issues. Further proposals will be announced in due course.
Perhaps I may point the noble Baroness to the appropriate paragraph of the White Paper on the future policy of the LMS formulae. Paragraph 34 states:
"The Government has reviewed this issue several times. It is a fundamental principle of LMS that governing bodies should take responsibility for the financial implications of their decisions, including deciding what to spend on teachers' salaries. The problems of schools that inherited high salary costs when LMS was first applied should now have been resolved through the transitional mechanisms built into LMS schemes and normal staff turnover. It remains open to LEAs to adjust the budgets of small schools to reflect their actual salary costs. So the Government does not propose to change existing policy in this area".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The reason that I sought to intervene at the beginning of the Minister's reply was that he was not answering the question, which is: how can the Government possibly say that they are having a review of LMS if they are not setting up a clear and discrete review with people to whom evidence may be given and if they have ruled out the very issue which in my experience and in that of my local authority colleagues has caused the most problems? The Government may say that in the case of small schools it is open to LEAs to vary the formula in order to help them. That is true, but all small schools would then be helped in exactly the same way because the differentials cannot be varied. It must be done objectively. Furthermore, that does not solve the problem of the long-established secondary school which may be quite large but which may have a large number of staff.
Teachers age during that 10-year period, so the school which did not have a problem five or six years ago may now be encountering one. The Government's attitude is cavalier and their refusal to have a thorough root-and-branch review cannot be replaced by detailed discussions with the local authorities, however welcome. If the Government say that they are reviewing the matter, the governors expect them to review it properly.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment. I hope that he is right in believing that the powers that I propose will not be necessary in the interval between today and the completion of the review. I confess that his responses to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, do not encourage me to believe that that is necessarily the case. However, he advises me to look at a better way of

1687
producing the same effect. It may be that at a later stage I will return to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.202B not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No.203:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
COURSES OF FURTHER EDUCATION FOR PERSONS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES
(" . In sub-paragraph (j) of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 the words from "which" to the end of the paragraph shall be omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall be as brief as possible in view of the hour. This is a very important issue, and one that keeps coming back—always late at night. The amendment would enable FEFCs to fund courses in independent living and communication skills for people with learning disabilities without their having to show that they could progress to other vocational or academic courses. My noble friend Lord Rix spoke eloquently on the problem at Second Reading. He entrusted the amendment to me as he was going on holiday. However, I am delighted to see that he has returned in time to support the amendment.
It is also very cheering to have the unflagging support of the noble Baroness, Lady David. This is the third Bill in respect of which the noble Baroness and I have attempted to do something on this subject more or less at every stage. Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 describes courses for adults over 19 and part-time students for whom FEFCs have a responsibility.
Course 2(j) is a course in independent living and communication skills for people with learning difficulties which prepares them for entry to other courses. This was introduced at the Third Reading of the 1992 Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, in response to considerable badgering and cajoling from the noble Baroness and myself. We were very grateful for that. But at the moment some students, particularly those with most severe disabilities and learning difficulties, miss out on the opportunities for education after 19 simply because of the wording in legislation about progressing to other courses.
The amendment would not alter the existing requirement on LEAs to provide recreation and leisure courses. The Minister will remember that the last time the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I had a go at tabling this amendment during the passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill—by that time the noble Lord, Lord Rix, had joined us—the Minister tabled at Third Reading an amendment requiring LEAs to publish disability statements. We were also very grateful for that. I believe that the first of those will be published this year. I am sure that they will prove very useful, as
1688
are those that are published by the colleges. They will increase the information on what support is available. But for students with severe learning difficulties life skills are not a recreational option but an essential tool in order to live as effectively and independently as possible in the adult world. They are the equivalent of A-levels for the more academic student. They are, if you like, A-levels in living and survival and are best learned in a college environment and in contact with other students.
Inclusive Learning, a recent report from the FEFC's independent Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities Committee, chaired by Professor John Tomlinson, suggested that the current interpretation of Schedule 2 should be reviewed. It is an extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking report. It has some interesting things to say as to what constitutes progression and how important it is that the right courses are available to offer opportunities to progress.
The FEFC has not yet said what its intentions are towards the report's recommendations. It has sent out a consultation circular and replies to it are to be in by the end of March. The Minister referred to it when he replied at Second Reading. He concluded:
"In those circumstances further comment before that consultation is finalised would be pre-emptive".—[Official Report, 10/2/97; col. 91.]
I appreciate that it may be difficult for the Minister to say anything too definite in the circumstances, but this is an important and long-running saga which has still to be resolved satisfactorily. I feel strongly about this. Mencap and Skill feel strongly about it, as I am sure do Members of the Committee who have supported it so strongly on many occasions and the previous time around. I see a number of those noble Lords here tonight, for which I am grateful. Of course they may be here for other things as well.
There may well be a need in the future for further clarification about the role of the social services and the FEFC in relation to the opportunities for adults with the most severe disabilities and learning difficulties. But for the moment I believe that the recommendations of Inclusive Learning offer a good next step forward. I therefore greatly hope that the Minister can agree that the problem still exists and can at any rate acknowledge the importance of the work of the Tomlinson Committee and the value of its report. I beg to move.
Baroness David: We have been struggling with this for five years. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her great efforts to get a move on with it. She takes immense trouble with this issue. She deserves the support of the Committee, and, I hope, the Minister. It has been difficult. I know how hard we fought in the 1992 Bill, because we felt that children with learning difficulties, particularly those who were aged 19 and were then unable to stay at school or in that sort of environment, needed to be able to progress to a college. That is what has proved so difficult.
What is such an enormous help to our cause this time is the report Inclusive Learning, chaired by Professor

1689
John Tomlinson. It is a good report and extremely helpful to our cause. It acknowledges that there are problems with the way that the FEFC currently interprets the legislation. It offers a solution that retains the important notion or progress, but broadens out what that word "progress" means.
I shall quote paragraph 9.39 of the report, which states:
"We want to ensure that the Council's—and colleges'—interpretation of schedule 2(j) is in keeping with the spirit of the legislation. We recognise that the Act is designed, in part, to ensure that national training and education priorities are met. This places importance on learning programmes that contribute to economic productivity, directly or indirectly. Programmes which contribute to independent adult living should be included because they facilitate economic productivity. It is the committee's view that the Council's present interpretation of Schedule 2(j) and that of some colleges does not take properly into account the value to society of this kind of learning. As we argued in chapter 3, our focus on inclusive learning requires new standards for judging the adequacy of provision".
This is a very important document. I hope that the Minister will be able to give it a warm welcome, and express his enthusiasm for it when he comes to reply.
Lord Rix: I thank my noble friend Lady Darcy for moving this amendment in my supposed absence. I did apologise on Second Reading for the fact that I should be out of the Chamber away on holiday. I had no idea that the length of Committee stage would exceed the "Ring" cycle and Oberammergau combined. Therefore I have found myself back from holiday and able to hear the amendment moved.
I of course support the amendment, but I realise that at this late hour of the morning it is impossible to seek a Division even if we wished to, though I gather that my noble friend Lady Darcy has had meaningful conversations with the Minister in my absence and that some progress may have been made.
In Committee, the Minister said that the recommendations of the Tomlinson Report, including the recommendation that the FEFC should take a wider view of progression in the wording of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, have now gone out to public consultation. In those circumstances, further comment before that consultation is finalised would be pre-empted. Clearly, that probably still applies.
However, I know that all of us who are interested in the amendment would be grateful if the Minister could comment on some of the following points. I refer to acknowledgment of the issues that the amendment is seeking to raise; an encouragement of the work of the Tomlinson Committee in dealing with the issues of inclusive learning and getting education to the widest range of students with learning disabilities; acknowledging that Tomlinson has made some useful suggestions on how to deal with the Schedule 2(j) issue; encouraging the FEFC to address the issue either by implementing the recommendations or by some equally
1690
effective means; and, finally, requiring the FEFC to report on progress in its next annual report.
If the Minister could give assurances on one or all of those points they will be happily received by those of us moving the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment and everything that has been said in its favour.
2.45 a.m.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for describing my conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) as being meaningful. I hope that they were on this amendment and others which she came to discuss with me. They are important as regards the provisions for students with severe learning difficulties.
It may assist the Committee if I first clarify some details of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. It sets out the descriptions of courses to which the duty to secure adequate further education relates and which, therefore, the FEFC may fund. Paragraph (i) provides for courses which teach independent living and communication skills for persons with learning difficulties. But the qualifying criterion is that such a course must prepare the student for further progress. All education is, to some degree. preparatory. By definition, learning implies new skills which lead the student on to other things. The concept of progress in education cannot be removed. I am afraid that the amendment would do just that.
There would also be some major practical difficulties if the amendment were to be enacted. It would lead to enormous confusion between the local authorities and the FEFC. At present, local authority social services departments make provision for many severely disabled adults, for example, through day centres. Other provision will, of course, be made by local education authorities which are under a further duty to have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties. Local education authorities retain duties to provide full-time and part-time education suitable to the needs of persons over the age of 16 in so far as the FEFC is not already under the duty to provide such education. In the main, this takes the form of courses which do not lead to qualifications and which may be of a more informal kind.
The amendment would blur the responsibilities of local authorities. It would mean that the FEFC's responsibilities would extend to new groups, including all day care clients with learning difficulties currently in social services facilities and people engaged in rehabilitation programmes because of injury or mental illness.
I believe that the resource implications are considerable. The demands on capital to secure adequate facilities would be of a particular concern for the FE sector. The FEFC could be under pressure to secure

1691
placements for individuals in specialist establishments outside the FE sector for a new group of students for whom the local authority currently only has a target duty.
Obviously, those are compelling reasons why the Government cannot accept the amendment. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that further consideration is being given to the difficulties faced by students with learning difficulties in the light of the Tomlinson Report, to which reference has been made and which has recently gone out to consultation. We warmly welcome the publication of that report. We believe that it represents the most comprehensive and detailed review of further education provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities that has ever taken place. As has been referred to, one of its key recommendations is,
"to take a wider view of progression within the wording of Schedule 2(i) to enable students to acquire new skills at the same level as their current course or maintain skills learned where this represents an achievement for them".
That recommendation argues for a considerably more liberal interpretation of Schedule 2(i) while still maintaining the principle of progression. Therefore, it is closely related to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord but moved so ably by the noble Baroness.
We should certainly wish to hear whether the further education sector believes that change to be desirable. Obviously we shall consider that recommendation carefully in the light of the whole consultation process. I believe that the noble Baroness understands that, as I said on Second Reading, I cannot give any further commitment before the end of that consultation period, but we shall consider these matters very carefully.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): First, I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady David, highlighted the importance of the Tomlinson report. My noble friend Lord Rix asked some important questions, many of which I believe have been answered by the Minister. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Warnock for her support, which I value a great deal.
The Minister said that he could not shift much from what he said on Second Reading but I am pleasantly surprised by what he said and I rather feel that he has shifted. I understand absolutely his point that the concept of progress in education cannot be removed, and it is important to keep that, and that the amendment would blur the divide between the social services, the LEAs and the FEFC. However, he said that there would be further consideration in the light of Tomlinson and, indeed, that he warmly welcomed the report. I believe that he said that it was the most important review ever of education for pupils with learning difficulties.
In a sense, I am only the surrogate mother of this baby so I seek confirmation from my noble friend Lord Rix that he does not wish to return to this matter at the next stage. I am delighted because I thought that I might have to reserve my position. I thank the Minister very
1692
warmly. I hope that really good things will come from Tomlinson and that there will be a different look at progress and at what courses are on offer to enable people to progress in different ways. I have no hesitation in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [Commencement of compulsory school age]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton move Amendment No. 203A:
Page 51, line 15, leave out from ("such") to ("specified") and insert ("a day in the year as is").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is necessary because, during the passage of the nursery education vouchers legislation, the Government failed to have due regard to the points that were raised in the other place and in your Lordships' House in relation to the entitlement to schooling and the start date for children starting their reception class year in primary school.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is a single date from which a child will become of compulsory school age. Although the number does not appear on the face of the Bill, the Government appear to intend to produce three dates. I have two questions for the Minister. First, how can the Government justify children, merely as a result of when they are born, being entitled to less statutory school time? Children will go through their school lives in the same year but the youngest in that class will be doubly disadvantaged because they may be entitled to only one term full-time reception class; they are the youngest in their year; and research shows that summer-born children remain disadvantaged.
Secondly, were the Government to recognise the need for such pupils to have their full year in the reception class, they ought also to recognise that the introduction of very young children should be matched by the proper training and staff resourcing to cope with those very young children at the start of the reception year. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like briefly to express my support for the amendment. I do not know quite why I have put my name to the amendment because I am one of those people who, every year, have to remind themselves what it means to put the clocks forwards and backwards. It is exactly that kind of comparative time-scale, with two time-scales working one against the other, which complicates the issue. However, I am acutely aware of the problems that this age of entry into full-time education gives and I am very well aware of the research which shows that it affects children for the rest of their lives. Therefore, I look forward with great interest to hearing the Minister's response.
Lord Henley: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I have much the same problem. I remember the great volume that we all bought, A Brief History of Time, which confused me even more. However, I am not alone in that

1693
respect. I shall have to tell the noble Baroness that I must look at the matter again more closely. When I first saw the amendments, I was somewhat confused, in that she seems to be saying that it is just one day in the year when a child becomes of compulsory school age. It seems to me that that in itself could cause much greater unfairness than having a number of different days in the year.
Perhaps we can work through an example of the practical effects of the noble Baroness's amendment as tabled. If we assume that the prescribed day is 31st August, any child turned five on or before that date would start school in the following autumn term. A child who turns five on the 30th August would start school in early December, whereas one whose birthday fell on the 2nd September would wait nearly a whole year before starting school. I believe that there was rather a bad case the other day of twins born either side of midnight and a rather inflexible local authority. However, the authority saw reason in the end. I just put that forward as an aside that I came across in newspaper reports. I do not know whether it is true.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will realise that that could lead to problems for the child born three days later, in that he would not start school until he was nearly six years of age. I do not believe that the noble Baroness means to advance amendments which would allow quite such a delay in the time at which a child starts school. Having said that, it is very late and I should like to look again carefully at what the noble Baroness said to see whether I can understand the nature of her precise concerns. If necessary, we can have further discussions between now and the Report stage.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the Minister for his reply. I should tell him and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I learnt about this subject because one of my children was born on 31st August. I should also tell the Minister that, if I could have my life over again, I think that I would have lied and said that he was born on 1st September.
However, when the Minister considers the implications involved, I would ask him to ignore the red herring as to whether or not a child would have to wait a year. The issue is to look at when children join the year with which they will go through their school lives. Therefore, one looks at when a child would be in that particular year. When one has identified the year cohort, one then seeks to ensure that none of the children in that year is denied the one or two terms that his or her fellow age group receives. Then one considers the appropriate resource and the appropriate provision. Virtually all schools, except the smallest village schools, are divided by year group, so if a group of rising fives is entering school they will all be in the same year in the end. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 203B, C and D not moved.]
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 204:
1694
Page 52, line 2, leave out ("11,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 204, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 205 and 217. These are technical amendments which take on board the recommendations of the delegated powers and deregulation committee. They relate to various order making powers provided for in the Bill. The committee's report was published on 17th February. I imagine it is familiar to all Members of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: These amendments are technical. Amendment No. 204 requires the order making power in Clause 11(1) to be made by statutory instrument using the negative resolution procedure. That is in accordance with paragraph 11 of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. We think that is good.
Amendment No. 205 introduces the need to make orders by statutory instrument to transfer staff and property from the SCAA and the NCVQ to the QCA. That is in accordance with paragraphs three and four of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. We find that good. Amendment No. 217 is in exactly the same way a matter of negative instrument and is in response to paragraph 10 of the Select Committee report. We welcome these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 52, line 5, leave out ("50(5), 51(9) or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 72 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendments Nos. 206 to 214:
Page 76, line 21, leave out ("National").
Page 76, line 26, leave out ("National").
Page 76, line 41, leave out ("National").
Page 77, line 10, leave out ("National").
Page 77, line 24, leave out ("National").
Page 77, line 30, leave out ("National").
Page 80, line 11, leave out ("National").
Page 80, line 17, leave out ("National").
Page 80, line 22, leave out ("National").
The right reverend Prelate said: I have already spoken to this group of amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 206 to 214 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 81, leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert—
("46.—(1) Section 568 of that Act (orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (orders required to be made by statutory instrument unless made under excepted provisions), after "excepted provisions" insert "or one falling within subsection (2A)".
(3) In subsection (2) (the excepted provisions)—
(a) after "77(7)," insert "81 A,": and

1695
(b) before "paragraph 5 of Schedule 21" insert "paragraph 7 of Schedule 5A,".
(4) After that subsection insert—
"(2A) An order falls within this subsection if it is made under section 413A(4) or paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 33B and applies only to one or more schools specified in the order.".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 204. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Short title, commencement and extent etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 219 to 222 not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at five minutes past three o'clock.

  Pollution Inspectorate: Research Budget
  Pollution Inspectorate: Research Budget
  Offending by Children: Green Paper
  Offending by Children: Green Paper
  Telecommunications Interception: Memorandum of Understanding with EU
  Telecommunications Interception: Memorandum of Understanding with EU
  Single Currency: Publicity Exercise
  Single Currency: Publicity Exercise
  Northern Ireland: Training and Employment Schemes
  Northern Ireland: Training and Employment Schemes
  Family Law: Advisory Board
  Family Law: Advisory Board
  Hedgerows
  Hedgerows
  ADAS: Salt
  ADAS: Salt
  Breast Feeding, Glasgow
  Breast Feeding, Glasgow
  NATO: Minister's Kiev Speech
  NATO: Minister's Kiev Speech
  Information Warfare
  Information Warfare
  The Constitution: Ministerial Responsibility
  The Constitution: Ministerial Responsibility
  Armed Forces: Medical Officers
  Armed Forces: Medical Officers