Sitting of 2 July 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 9 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Cattle Ear Tagging
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What representations he has received from animal welfare organisations in connection with his Department's new ear tagging arrangements for cattle. [47156]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The new arrangements for double tagging of cattle result from European Union, not national, rules. Welfare organisations were included in the consultations on the new arrangements.
    Mr. Swayne: The Minister will be aware that the tags have to be affixed to both ears of a calf during its first week of life. For some breeds, particularly Dexters, the tags will be larger than the calf's ears. For all breeds, those tags will snag and tear the soft flesh of the ear. Will the Minister review the system and take up the matter with his European Union colleagues to obtain an electronic and more humane alternative?
    Mr. Morley: The welfare issues relating to double tagging are very important. I should emphasise that the two tags do not have to be in the same ear—there can be one in each ear. We have managed to secure agreement that small breeds of cattle, such as Dexters, can wear a smaller second tag, which should take into account some of the welfare concerns. Welfare organisations and bodies such as the Dexter Cattle Society have been consulted on double tagging.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on taking a courageous view, for a Conservative Member, on animal welfare. I welcome that revised attitude to animal welfare, and I hope that he will be as sympathetic on the subject of hunting with hounds.
    Mr. Morley: Hunting with hounds is not a matter for me, but welfare issues are important. That is why we want
    504
    to progress such advances as electronic tagging—trials are currently taking place and will be completed by 2000. There are a whole range of animal welfare issues, and the Government should be congratulated on their progress in improving all kinds of animal welfare.

    Rabies
    Mr. Robin Corbett: When he expects to receive the report of the independent panel of scientists into alternatives to quarantine to combat rabies. [47157]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The advisory group on quarantine is expected to report to Ministers in the summer or early autumn.
    Mr. Corbett: I remind my hon. Friend that most continental European countries have bad records in the enforcement of animal welfare regulations, and a sustained improvement in that performance needs to be demonstrated before we can lower our quarantine defences. Will he quickly implement his new powers to enforce higher welfare standards in quarantine kennels, and close those kennels where the regulations are breached?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. As the House knows, the expert advisory group is comparing five options with the current system. We have asked it to present any option that is as good or better at protecting this country from rabies than the status quo. If it comes up with such an option, we shall fully consult the wider public, including pet owners and non pet owners, and there will be discussions in the House, after which we shall take actions accordingly.
    On my hon. Friend's specific question, he is right about welfare in kennels. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on successfully piloting through the Animal Health (Amendment) Act 1998, which allows the Government to make statutory rules for welfare in quarantine. We are having discussions with the kennel owners and the welfare societies about implementing those rules at a very early date.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on farm incomes in the year to 1 May 1998. [47158]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): Total income from farming is estimated on a calendar year basis. In the last year for which figures are available, 1997, total income from farming fell by 37 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Bercow: I thank the Minister for his answer, but I hope that he does not underestimate the damage that is being inflicted by current policies. What has he to say to Mr. Godfrey Caldwell, who runs a grass-drying business in my constituency? The strength of the pound has slashed the prices of his products by 40 per cent. over the last year, has cut a quarter of a million pounds from his

    505
    turnover although the same amount of work has been undertaken, and has caused him to make a loss for the first time in his 42-year career in the industry. Does the Minister understand why Mr. Caldwell considers him to be the worst occupant of his high office in living memory?
    Dr. Cunningham: I understand—as, I think, does every hon. Member—that the strength of sterling causes problems to farmers, and, for that matter, to manufacturing industry. I also understand—as the hon. Gentleman was a special adviser to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the last Conservative Government, I hope that he recalls this—that two thirds of the increase in the strength of sterling happened under that Administration, and not once was one penny of agrimonetary compensation paid.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know that the incomes of many farmers have been suppressed because of the legacy of the BSE crisis. Is he in a position to update us on the cattle traceability scheme, which I think will do much to help farmers in my constituency?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly true that, in addition to the strength of sterling, lower commodity prices have impacted adversely on farm incomes. It is for that reason, among others, that we announced £85 million of agrimonetary compensation earlier this year, and it is also for that reason that the Government have invested £30 million in the establishment of the cattle traceability scheme, which is located in Workington. I shall visit it tomorrow with the president of the National Farmers Union to get an on-the-spot update on progress, but I can tell the House that we are on course for the scheme to be fully operational in September.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Following our exchanges at our last agriculture Question Time about the continuing crisis in farm incomes, and the related increase in the number of farmers and their families who are now receiving various social security benefits, does the Minister share my surprise at what was revealed yesterday by the answers to my written questions to the Department of Social Security?
    Those answers reveal that the Department has no reliable data on either the number of farmers involved, or the percentage who are in need of state benefits. They also reveal that the Department's figures do not correlate with the Ministry's census figures in regard to the number of farmers in the country.
    Will the Minister undertake an urgent inquiry to try to rectify the position? As he is meeting the president of the National Farmers Union tomorrow on other business, will he take this opportunity to tell us in the House—as a means of approaching the farm incomes crisis—whether he shares the NFU leadership's view that early entry into European monetary union would help to alleviate many of the current difficulties?
    Dr. Cunningham: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point, let me say that the Government have made their position clear. It is interesting to note that the National Farmers Union shares the Government's view of the importance of this issue to farmers—unlike the
    506
    Conservative Opposition, whose policy continues to be extremely damaging to Britain in general and to farmers in particular.
    As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have not seen the answers that he has received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but I give him an undertaking that I will consider them urgently. If there is any need to improve the liaison between my Ministry and the Department for Social Security—I acknowledge that there are always opportunities to improve the way in which we perform—we shall certainly do so.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the analogy of bringing a supertanker to a halt, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health? The Government took over an industry that was devastated by the BSE crisis, with farm incomes plummeting since March 1996, and it takes time to stop such a precipitious fall. The decline has now halted and we can look forward to recovery and subsequent growth in farm incomes in the final years of this Parliament.
    Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Farm incomes were in steep decline at the time of the general election. The previous Administration did nothing about it, and certainly never paid any agrimonetary compensation. I share my hon. Friend's hope that we can turn round the disastrous circumstances affecting farmers, and especially livestock farmers and the beef industry, as a consequence of the Conservative Government's abysmal policy failures.
    Mr. James Paice: Is not it time that Ministers stopped blaming BSE for the crisis in agriculture and recognised that BSE has nothing whatever to do with the collapse in milk, sheep or grain prices? Does he recall the Parliamentary Secretary saying at a previous Agriculture Question Time that 50 per cent. of farmers have borrowings? Why, then, do all the agriculture managers of the major banks say that the figure is between 70 and 90 per cent., and that those borrowings are going up by about 8 per cent. overall and 16 per cent. in Scotland? Is it any wonder that farmers throughout Britain think that the Government do not know and do not care?
    Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman's synthetic anger is misplaced. If he talks to beef farmers, he will find that they really do think that the ban on their product resulting from the previous Government's failures is one of the biggest problems that they face; they say that repeatedly. The information that we get from the banks is very different from the figures that he has just cited.

    Sea Levels (South-east)
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Pursuant to his answer of 4 June 1998, Official Report, column 341, on sea levels in the Thames estuary and River Medway, if he will carry out surveys relating solely to projected sea level rises. [47159]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): It is not the Ministry's responsibility to undertake such surveys. The Environment Agency is responsible for undertaking surveys and studies as part of its flood defence functions; in doing so, it takes into account Ministry guidance on sea level rise.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Like many others, I am concerned that this is a question of falling between stools. The Government need to take the initiative and examine the impact on coastal regions of rising sea levels, because the evidence suggests that there will be significant flood tides on the Thames and Medway over the next quarter of a century, which will necessitate increasing use of the Thames barrier and involve a danger of its being overtopped. The problem should be addressed by the Government on behalf of all hon. Members who represent coastal regions.
    Mr. Morley: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the projected rises in sea level are taken into account in Environment Agency surveys and in our flood defence calculations. It is not considered that the flood defences in my hon. Friend's constituency are at risk. I know that there has been some press speculation that he has offended the Prime Minister in some way, but I assure him that there is no danger that his constituency will be obliterated as a result.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What assessment he has made of the impact of the German Government's proposed reduction of its national contribution to the EU budget upon the common agricultural policy. [47160]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): One key reason why the German contribution is so high is the cost of the common agricultural policy. The best way of keeping member states' contributions to affordable levels is to ensure firm control of the Union's spending. That necessitates policy reform. We hope that Germany will join us in pressing for fundamental reform of the CAP, which will bring savings in the longer term.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not the case that neither German electioneering nor the right hon. Gentleman's empty rhetoric have done anything to modify the burgeoning growth of the common agricultural policy? How can he countenance £1 billion ecu in subsidy for tobacco growing? How can he approve of £857 million ecu for wine production up to 2003? Is not the CAP a protection racket for booze and fags?
    Dr. Cunningham: I share some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the cost of the CAP but I do not share his attitude towards persuading our colleagues in Europe to change it. I also share his view about the tobacco regime; Britain is one of the minority of five member states that do not grow tobacco. Ten members do grow tobacco, and that is why there is a tobacco regime.
    508
    We can change the situation only by sensible and reasonable negotiation, and not by using the kind of language employed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Once the German elections have passed, are there any plans for serious discussion of what will happen when new member states begin to make demands on the CAP pool?
    Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend raises the important need to reform CAP as part of the process of enlargement. It is untenable to suppose that the policy as presently constituted and financed could be acceptable when there is a significant increase in the member states of the European Union.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister must know that he has allowed the presidency of the EU to go by without his placing those important matters on the agenda. Is that why he has not bothered to go to a single agricultural show during the United Kingdom presidency? There are rumours that when he does turn up for one, it will have to be specially policed so that farmers can be kept away from him.
    Dr. Cunningham: We can conclude from that question that the hon. Gentleman slept through the UK presidency. In reality, the Agriculture Council unanimously approved conclusions that were adopted at the Cardiff summit. Work on those conclusions will be continued by the Austrian presidency. The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong.

    Genetically Modified Organisms
    Mr. David Drew: If the Government will organise an independent investigation into genetically modified organisms, with particular regard to (a) labelling and (b) segregation. [47161]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have no current plans to do as my hon. Friend asks, but the Government will hold public consultation on biotechnology in the near future in order to inform future policy.
    Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Responsibility for GMOs is shared jointly with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Will the Minister acknowledge the unprecedented level of interest in GMOs, ranging from the Prince of Wales to The Express? Will he reconsider his earlier reply, and consider an investigation into labelling and segregation of GMOs to ensure consumer confidence and choice?
    Mr. Rooker: The widespread interest in how our food is produced, marketed and labelled should be welcomed by everyone. We ask, however, that people consider the science. I could nitpick about The Express article on Monday, which contained inaccuracies. From September, compulsory labelling of genetically modified soya and maize will begin. Several other products are already voluntarily labelled to show that they are genetically modified. We cannot force segregation of crops

    509
    internationally as we would have a problem with the World Trade Organisation, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food produced a list of 48 suppliers of non-genetically modified soya and maize a few weeks ago. Others have since been added to the list, which now names 57 suppliers. The more information available, the better for all concerned.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: Can the Minister explain why acres of genetically modified soya have been planted just 100 yards from the largest organic farm in the west country without any consultation with the organic farmer about the effect on his livelihood? How can 841 acres of genetically modified trials, approved by MAFF, be allowed only 100 yards from an organic farm?
    Mr. Rooker: It is not MAFF that approves that. [Interruption.] No, it is not. It is right that more than one Government Department is involved. In terms of crops, the Department of the Environment controls the releases to the environment through its advisory committee. It is important that it is not MAFF, the food-sponsoring Ministry, which plays that role. If I have the location of the farm mentioned by the hon. Gentleman correctly in mind, there are few acres of genetically modified crops within the total of the experimental acres and the genetically modified crops are 2 km away from the organic farm.
    Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that scientists are often regarded as arrogant, distant and uncaring, and that they, too, must win the argument with the consumer?
    Mr. Rooker: I endorse what my hon. Friend said. Many scientists wish to be as open as possible. Obviously, sometimes confidentiality and peer group discussions present difficulties. Nevertheless, it is in the interests of science that it is as open as possible and it is in the interests of us all that we keep scientists on tap, not on top.

    Agrimonetary Compensation Payments
    Mr. Christopher Gill: If he will reconsider his decision not to make agrimonetary compensation payments. [47162]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I announced on 3 February our decision to pay £85 million in agrimonetary compensation to the UK beef and sheepmeat sectors. This is the first occasion on which a UK Government have paid such aid.
    Mr. Gill: Is not the real reason why the Government refuse to pay the full amount of agrimonetary compensation because they are trying to browbeat individual farmers into abandoning their opposition to the single currency? [Laughter.] I am talking about the views, not of the National Farmers Union which the Minister has already articulated, but of individual farmers. In many respects, the views of the NFU are as different from the views of individual farmers, and as out of touch with them, as the views of the Government are out of sympathy with public opinion.
    Dr. Cunningham: Even for the fevered anti-European imagination of the hon. Gentleman that one is a tall story.
    510
    As I have already told the House, the reality is that this is the first Administration ever to pay agrimonetary compensation to farmers and—
    Mr. Gill: A tiny amount.
    Dr. Cunningham: We have paid 95 per cent. of the total available to sheep farmers and 75 per cent. of the total available to beef farmers.

    Fishing
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: When he next proposes to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss the regulation of fishing. [47163]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Frequent meetings are held with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on a wide range of fisheries issues. No firm date has been set for a future meeting, but I last met them on Monday of this week.
    Mr. Mitchell: I know that my hon. Friend makes unprecedented efforts to keep in touch with the industry and, in particular, to come to its natural home in Grimsby and consult the industry there. At the same time, he is imposing an unprecedented diet of change and now the possibility of charges on the hard pressed industry. Will he undertake, first, to introduce changes and charges only by consent and after consultation and, secondly, to impose no more restrictions or charges on the British industry than its European competitors face? We need a genuinely level fishing ground where regulations are not imposed and enforced in this country while they are blithely ignored across Europe.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that, when we came to power over a year ago, we inherited a fishing industry in utter shambles. That is why a great many changes in regulations and procedures have been introduced. It is correct to say that, as part of a comprehensive spending review, we have been considering all options, including whether there is a case for charges. That is an academic exercise, and we have made available to the industry the results. I assure my hon. Friend that proposals will not come forward without full and proper consultation with the industry and without taking into account what other European countries are doing in relation to such things as charges.
    Mr. John Townend: Is the Minister aware of the great disappointment that, under the proposed regulations, Bridlington will not be a designated port? Is he aware that the reasons that he gave me in his letter of 17 June—that there were no auction facilities and no fisheries office—are not acceptable? It is not acceptable that such decisions are made for bureaucratic convenience. My fishermen see this as further evidence that this is a Government of deregulation and I hope that he will reconsider that decision.
    Even more worrying to my fishermen is the fear that in future the regulations for designated ports might be extended to those dealing with pelagic varieties, which would severely affect Bridlington. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no extension?
    Mr. Morley: Designated ports have been introduced to try to improve fisheries enforcement. Whether we like it

    511
    or not, there is a problem of enforcement and blackfish. This is a national issue for which we are responsible. In addition to the reasons given in the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred, Bridlington was not included because of the number of over-20 m boats which operate from there. We have received representations from Bridlington and they will be considered as part of the consultation exercise. However, I emphasise that the restriction applies only to over-20 m vessels and it simply requires them to give only four hours notice on their way to port or in port to give us the option of having a seafish inspector on the quayside to ensure that everything is in order.
    Mr. Andrew George: What assurance can the Minister give the House that Britain's 6 and 12 mile fishing limits can be protected after the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2002?
    Mr. Morley: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the issue seriously. The 6 and 12 mile limits are a derogation from the common fisheries policy and must be renewed by a majority vote in the Council of Ministers. However, the value of the 6 and 12 mile limits has already been emphasised in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister from the President of the Commission. I am confident that the value of the 6 and 12 mile limits, which other countries also acknowledge, means that they will continue after 2002. That certainly will not be part of the conspiracy theories against Europe that we have heard today in the House.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Fishermen in my constituency feel that my hon. Friend has done well since the election in his support for the fishing industry, but they never stop telling me that the fishing regulations are just not enforced as strictly by some European countries as they are by Britain. Does my hon. Friend agree and, if so, what steps is he taking, and what steps can he take, to ensure a level fishing ground—words taken out of my mouth earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)?
    Mr. Morley: I can assure my hon. Friend that his fishermen are right to be concerned that measures are not enforced equally and fairly by all member states. It was for that reason that, under our presidency, we introduced a new draft directive which addresses the issues of enforcement and control, common definitions and common standards of enforcement, which all member states at the Council of Ministers agreed was important and should be introduced. I am confident that those issues will be properly addressed.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has the Minister given consideration to the implications of the EU working time directive, particularly for the catching sector? Given the complexities of the implementation of the directive and how it will affect that vital sector, particularly in my area, is it the Government's recommendation that the catching sector should be excluded?
    Mr. Morley: MAFF accepts that the working time directive is not appropriate for the working pattern of
    512
    share fishermen. We have had representations from fishermen's organisations and they have raised the issue with the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: What confidence can the fishing industry have in the Minister's willingness to stand up in Europe to oppose further regulations such as the working time directive, the extension of logbook regulations and species recording when he is unilaterally planning, without reference to Europe, to introduce designated landing ports? Is it not time that he stopped contributing to the blizzard of overregulation that fishermen must undergo and did something positive, in Europe and in this country, to oppose it?
    Mr. Morley: This is about national competence and the Government accepting our responsibility for the problem of over-landings and black fish. We had to introduce regulations such as designated ports because of the utter failure of the previous Administration to tackle the issue.

    Food Quality
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to ensure that British farmers co-operate with British supermarkets to ensure high-quality food. [47164]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The quality of British food is second to none. The Government continue to help our farmers and growers to develop their marketing expertise so that they are better able to supply their products with the consistency, and in the volumes, that the supermarkets say they need.
    Mr. Sheerman: That answer may seem a little complacent to anyone who has sampled the diversity and richness of other countries' food. Does the Minister agree that we have some of the most efficient and effective but also some of the most powerful supermarkets in the world? The power that they wield against our farming industry is quite intimidating. Will my hon. Friend ensure that our Government play a role in evening the balance to give diversity, choice and a good price to British farmers?
    Mr. Rooker: I do not think that the supermarkets are against the British farming industry. That is not my experience from visits around the country or my meetings in London. They have worked incredibly well over the past 12 months, on the farm assurance scheme in particular, so that there is some consistency and so that farmers are not played off one against the other between different supermarkets. MAFF's task force has helped more than 500 food businesses to improve their marketing techniques. Although we make every effort, we cannot, do not seek to, and are not qualified to do the industry's marketing job for it.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: One of the finest products on supermarket shelves is traditional British brandy butter, made to a recipe tried and tested for more than 100 years. Does the Minister agree that a new EU directive that will make it illegal to market this traditional product as brandy butter is unreasonable? Will he do something to help brandy butter producers such as

    513
    Charles Gordon Associates in my constituency, which tells me that jobs are at risk from the directive? Will he help it to stop the directive preventing it from selling its traditional product in our shops?
    Mr. Rooker: For traditional chilled butters with alcoholic content, if there is a minimum of 34 per cent. butterfat content, I presume that there is 66 per cent. rum or brandy. One wonders what else is in there if those quantities are not matched by the manufacturer.
    Mr. Mark Todd: As someone who makes and consumes brandy butter, I am sympathetic, but can the Minister go back to the original question and address the relationship between supermarkets and the farming community? Many farmers are concerned that some supermarket chains choose to import goods that are produced to lower standards than those acceptable to our farming community or aware consumers. Steps should be taken to increase public information about such practices.
    Mr. Rooker: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I can only repeat what I said earlier. This week, when I was at the spray and sprayers exhibition in Cambridgeshire—[Laughter.] Well, many thousands of other people were there as well. I see that people find that a laughing matter, but that is a serious and important part of the industry. In discussions with representatives of farmers, supermarkets, the agrochemical industry and women's institutes—the whole food chain—it was clear that people were seeking to work together to ensure good-quality British food. We claim that it is the best, and that people should buy British, not just because it is British but because it is the best. People are working together in a way that they have never done before. We would encourage and embrace that, but people have to be free to import products. It comes down to nothing more or less than consumer choice, but food will not be allowed to go on sale in this country unless it conforms to the food safety legislation.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: Surely the Minister must understand that there is a growing realisation that the powers of the supermarkets, their domination of the food chain and the way in which they dictate terms to farmers and suppliers are a cause for concern. Is it not a grotesque fact that one of the most effective farmers' co-operatives, Milk Marque, is under investigation while the supermarkets are able to exercise considerable dominance without being questioned? Is it not important that farmers be encouraged to combine and co-operate to achieve countervailing power? Do not the Government and the development agencies have a role in facilitating and encouraging that?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, indeed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are encouraging farmers' co-operatives, but food producers, especially supermarkets, are always subject to the Office of Fair Trading restrictions. They are not out there as completely free agents.
    Mr. Michael Jack: It may be a shade early to talk of Christmas, but my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) mentioned brandy butter. May I draw it to the attention of the Minister that another Christmas favourite, beef on the bone, remains banned? He knows that we have consistently opposed that ban,
    514
    and in today's Financial Times and Evening Standard there is a ray of hope in the indication that the Prime Minister is calling on the Minister of Agriculture to lift the ban. May I congratulate him on recruiting the Prime Minister to our cause? In the light of that information, may I now ask the Minister when he intends to stop pursuing people in the meat trade—caterers, butchers and others—in terms of prosecution? When will he repent like a sinner who has made a mistake, apologise for imposing this unnecessary ban and get it lifted?
    Mr. Rooker: We are not the prosecuting authority, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. We are not pursuing anyone. The law is the law and it will take its course. I am not prepared to comment on cases that are currently before the courts.

    Abattoirs
    Mr. Ross Cranston: What assessment he has made of the effect of the publication of hygiene scores for abattoirs. [47165]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The publication of individual hygiene scores for licensed abattoirs and cutting plants is one of several measures designed to drive up standards in the meat industry. Although measurable improvements have been achieved and they have been substantial, we accept that more remains to be done, and we continue to push the industry to make further improvements and to eliminate bad practices.
    Mr. Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that Britain is the only country in Europe that publishes individual scores? With the aim of propagating that information more widely, will he tell us where the best and worst abattoirs in the country are?
    Mr. Rooker: There has been a considerable improvement in the past 12 months. Hygiene scores above the 65 mark in April 1997 were 61 per cent., and in March 1998, were 94 per cent. That must have something to do with the fact that, since January this year, for each abattoir and cutting plant, the scores have been published. The two plants with the lowest hygiene score according to latest figures for June are Heaney meats of Woolwich and Cruisedeal of Manchester—both cutting plants—with a hygiene assessment score of only 50, which is unacceptably low. The two plants with the highest score were Knowles and Son of Bury and Mid Glamorgan Provisions of Bridgend—both stand-alone cutting plants—with a hygiene score of 100.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What are the Government doing to ensure that imported meats meet the same high hygiene standards as meat in this country has to meet?
    Mr. Rooker: I can honestly say to the hon. Lady that we are doing a lot more than her party did when it was in government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on.] Oh yes. On Friday, we saw as a matter of public record that, in 1992, the previous Prime Minister instructed a previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to go easy on hygiene standards in abattoirs in this country. We are doing far

    515
    more than that. Meat will not be allowed into this country from abroad to be sold unless it meets the standards demanded of the meat industry by the Labour Government, which are much higher than those demanded by the previous Government.

    Drift Nets
    Mr. Martyn Jones: What is the UK Government's present policy regarding the use of drift nets. [47167]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government have promoted an EC agreement on ending the use of high seas drift nets in order to protect dolphins and other non-target species.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware of the problem of drift netting for migrating salmon off the coast of Ireland, which is devastating the salmon population in Welsh rivers. That is affecting tourism in Wales and, in the long term, it will affect the drift netting of salmon off the coast of Ireland. Will he do everything in his power, at the Council of Ministers and elsewhere, to make sure that that practice is limited to a sustainable level?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. Atlantic salmon stocks have declined dramatically. Irish salmon netting is beyond our national control, but I can assure my hon. Friend that, in our representations to Ireland, we shall draw attention to our concern about the impact of netting on salmon stocks.

  The Attorney-General was asked—
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Sir Sydney Chapman: When he last had discussions on the Crown Prosecution Service with (a) the Secretary of State for the Home Department and (b) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. [47146]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): I frequently discuss matters of mutual interest with ministerial colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Officials from the Crown Prosecution Service likewise have frequent discussions with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Those discussions promote co-operation and effective joint working between agencies in the criminal justice system and are a key feature of the Government's commitment to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system generally.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Now that we have had an opportunity to read the Glidewell report following the statement made in the House by the Attorney-General on 1 June, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if there is to be an improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service, it is
    516
    absolutely essential that there should be better co-operation and co-ordination between that service, the police forces and the Court Service? Will he encourage the new Director of Public Prosecutions, as a matter of priority, to hold discussions with the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and to ensure that that becomes a reality in London, where, in my opinion, there is a desperate need for less centralisation and less bureaucracy?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The need for better co-operation goes to the heart of the matter. A great deal has been done in recent years and many of the 75 recommendations that Sir Iain Glidewell made deal precisely with that issue. The issue goes wider than my own Department and wider than the CPS, so the Government as a whole, including my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, will be looking at all 75 recommendations as a matter of urgency. The document is now out to consultation and I should be grateful for any observations drawn from the experience of the hon. Gentleman in respect of London. As he knows, there are particular proposals for London.
    Mr. David Winnick: Arising from the discussions that my right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned, can he confirm that the Crown Prosecution Service has not closed the files on the murder of Stephen Lawrence—the brutal racist killing that took place in April 1993? Will he confirm that, when the inquiry is ended, every effort will continue to be made to ensure that the murderers of Stephen Lawrence—or at least some of the murderers of the 17-year-old—are brought to justice? Is he aware that Stephen's parents will never give up their fight for justice? Those who murdered their son should be put in the dock and, if found guilty, serve a life sentence.
    The Attorney-General: I fully understand the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend; that is what the inquiry under a distinguished former judge is all about. Thereafter, of course, it will be a matter for the police, in the first instance, and if there is evidence, a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. We have to take it in stages.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discuss the Crown Prosecution Service, will he discuss the Lord Chancellor's proposals to open up rights of audience for employed solicitors within the CPS to the higher courts? Will he attempt to reconcile the Lord Chancellor's views on that subject with those that he himself expressed at the Bar conference not long ago, when he said that the independent Bar was one of the bastions of a democratic society? Are the views of the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor reconcilable on this matter—or on any other matter?
    The Attorney-General: The views of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor on the independence of the Bar are precisely the same as mine. I have spelt them out time after time—but repetition is important, and a good thing. The Lord Chancellor includes in his consultation paper words almost to the same effect, which have exactly the same meaning.

    Serious Fraud Trials
    Mr. Ross Cranston: What analysis he has made of the use of juries in serious fraud trials. [47147]
    The Attorney-General: In February my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched a consultation exercise seeking views on whether an alternative method of trial should be available in serious and complex fraud cases, and on the viability of various options for change. The Government have not reached a conclusion on whether the ending of jury trials in serious fraud cases is desirable in principle, or formed an opinion on any particular options for change, and will not do so until the consultation process is complete.
    Mr. Cranston: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the view recently expressed by the head of the Serious Fraud Office that some fraud trials are incapable of being handled by a jury? In considering that view, will he weigh against it the idea that technological developments have made it possible to simplify cases so that they can be more easily expressed to a jury, thereby making it possible to retain the jury in many fraud cases?
    The Attorney-General: I fully recognise the technological changes, which are an invaluable tool in some of the more complicated fraud trials. In her article, the director of the Serious Fraud Office made it clear that she was expressing her personal view. As the Home Secretary said in his consultation paper, the Government recognise that there are concerns that the present system for handling some major complex fraud trials is not working satisfactorily, and that there may be a case for considering some change to the system. Obviously, we shall take into account both the director's views and those of all who participate in the consultation exercise.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also bear in mind, in that context, the fact that, historically, one of the problems with serious fraud trials appears to have been a tendency to overload indictments and not to sever them? If simple matters are explained simply, in a way that will lead to a just verdict, most juries can understand them perfectly well.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is right. The responsibility lies in the first instance on the Crown, likewise on the defence, and above all on the trial judge. The Court of Appeal has long spoken against overloaded indictments, but the hon. Gentleman will recall, in a famous case not so long ago, what happened with regard to the second trial.
    Mr. John Burnett: Is the Attorney-General aware of the many misgivings at the possible replacement of juries in serious fraud trials? Is he aware of the public outrage in Israel at the recent acquittal, by a judge sitting alone, of numerous politicians charged with serious fraud and corruption?
    The Attorney-General: I am not aware of that case. As far back as I can remember, there have been many
    518
    views, both in favour of and against, the continuation of jury trials—not just in fraud cases but in some others, too. I for one, with a little experience of handling fraud trials, greatly value the role of the jury in deciding issues such as dishonesty. On the other hand, there are also other considerations in a small number of cases, such as the burden imposed on jurors of taking six months or perhaps a year out of their lives. Some might say that that was intolerable.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What objectives he plans to set for the new Director of Public Prosecutions. [47148]
    The Attorney-General: New objectives for the Crown Prosecution Service are being considered, taking into account the findings of Sir Iain Glidewell's review of the Crown Prosecution Service, the cross-cutting comprehensive spending review of the criminal justice system and the Crown Prosecution Service's own comprehensive spending review. The intention is that revised Crown Prosecution Service objectives will contribute to the Government's wider objectives for the criminal justice system as a whole.
    Mr. Swayne: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to ensure a consistent prosecution policy across England and Wales?
    The Attorney-General: We hope to continue the work already done by the CPS to ensure national standards and objectives. To be fair to the CPS, great steps have already been taken over many years in that direction. Provided such national standards are adhered to, a great deal of the responsibility for implementing them can be devolved to local police areas.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does the Attorney-General agree that it is wrong that DTI inspectors should investigate allegations of insider dealing and report to politicians in the DTI who have the final say? Surely it would be better to transfer the responsibility for investigating insider dealing, under the Financial Services Act 1986, to an independent investigative body such as the CPS, with decisions on prosecutions being taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    The Attorney-General: These are matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Proposals on the future policing of the City have already been announced and are in the public domain.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: Will the Attorney-General ensure that the CPS is made fully aware of the fact that, under the Crime and Disorder Bill, the maximum sentence—in terms of custody to be served—available to a magistrates court will be six weeks? Will he give the CPS revised guidelines to ensure that more cases are tried in the Crown courts, where proper sentences can be imposed? Will he bear in mind the fact that many of us think that six weeks' custody is far too low a maximum for magistrates courts?
    The Attorney-General: These matters are primarily for the Home Secretary, but I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point about the CPS. The latter has to decide on the right venue in which to prosecute each and every case; I believe that it does so to ensure that justice is done.
    Mr. David Lock: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my congratulations on the recent appointment of a new chief executive to the CPS? What role does he see for the new chief executive, bearing in mind the new structure proposed for the CPS in the Glidewell report?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. We have already, as he knows, announced to the House the appointment of the chief executive. He is in post, familiarising himself with his brief. When he has done so, he will consider with the DPP and other relevant Departments how far the Glidewell proposals should be accepted. He will oversee the bringing together of the senior management team for the new structure and he will initiate the selection process for the 42 chief Crown prosecutors, whose actual selection will require the involvement of the new DPP.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Ian Bruce: If he will make a statement on the reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service. [47149]
    The Attorney-General: I published the report of the review of the Crown Prosecution Service—the Glidewell
    520
    review—on 1 June 1998. Its main thrust, which we accept, lies in proposals for reordering CPS priorities to focus more on the core business of prosecuting, greater separation of management from legal work, greater autonomy for the areas and better prospects for staff.
    We immediately accepted the recommendation for the appointment of a chief executive, to which I have just referred, and work is already under way within the CPS and other Departments to consider the recommendations. I expect to provide the House with a progress report in the autumn.
    Mr. Bruce: The whole House would respect the Attorney-General for the calm and charming way in which he answers questions in the House. However, if one looks back at the answers that he has given on the Crown Prosecution Service and at the criticism coming from both sides of the House, it is clear that that calm and charm masks a great deal of incompetence in his Department and possibly even on his part. Barbara Mills resigned, rightly, because of the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service was functioning. What about people in the Attorney-General's Department—or will we always be reassured that the CPS is working well, when clearly it has never worked well?
    The Attorney-General: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's latter comments and grateful to him for his earlier words. We inherited a system that was appallingly bad. We published in opposition "The Case for the Prosecution." I immediately set in train the Glidewell review. It examined in detail what was wrong and produced a report within a very short time—one year—which we are about to implement. We are doing so because the palsied hand of the previous Administration did nothing at all.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I wish the right hon. Lady a very happy birthday, and ask if she will give us the business for next week?
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Charmer.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Very calmly said. I thank the hon. Gentleman.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 JULY—Estimates Day (1st allotted day).
There will be a debate on further education, followed by a debate on the Government's proposals for a freedom of information Act. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Question will be put on the relevant estimates at 10 pm.
TUESDAY 7 JULY—Opposition Day (16th allotted day).
There will be a debate on the release of information to Select Committees on an Opposition motion.
Motion relating to the Social Security Amendment (Lone Parents) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 8 JuLY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Competition Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 9 JULY—Debate on the national health service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 10 JULY—Proceedings on the Landmines Bill.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 JULY—Opposition Day (17th allotted day).
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 14 JULY—Estimates Day (2nd allotted day).
There will be a debate on the UK beef industry, followed by a debate on the structure and funding of university research. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
WEDNESDAY 15 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the School Standards and Framework Bill.
THURSDAY 16 JULY—Debate on the economy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 17 JULY—Debate on NATO enlargement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 8 July there will be a debate on the 1999 preliminary draft budget in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
522
[Monday 6 July:
Estimates Day [1st allotted day]—Class IX, vote 1: Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services in so far as it relates to further education. Relevant reports: the Sixth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1997–98, on Further Education (HC 264—I); the Department for Education and Employment's Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1998–99 (Cm 3910).
Class CVII, vote 1: Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service in so far as it relates to the Government's proposals for a freedom of information Act. Relevant reports: the Third Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration, Session 1997–98, on Your Right to Know: The Government's Proposals for a Freedom of Information Act (HC 398); the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration, Session 1997–98, on Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions (HC 820).
Tuesday 14 July 1998:
Estimates Day [2nd allotted day]—Class IV, votes 1 and 2: Intervention Board executive agency and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in so far as they relate to the UK beef industry. Relevant reports: the Third Report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1997–98, on the UK Beef Industry (HC 474); the Second Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on the Present Crisis in the Welsh Livestock Industry (HC 447).
Class V, vote 2: Department of Trade and Industry: Science in so far as it relates to the structure and funding of university research. Relevant report: the First Report of the Science and Technology Committee on the Implications of the Dearing Report for the Structure and Funding of University Research (HC 303).
Wednesday 8 July:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: (i) SEC(98)800 and (ii) COM(98)300, 1999 Preliminary Draft Budget. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: (i) HC 155-xxx (1997–98) and (ii) HC 155-xxxii (1997–98).
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving us the business for the next two weeks. We appreciate that. I thank her particularly for responding to the Leader of the Opposition's offer and providing Friday 10 July for consideration of the Landmines Bill. I reiterate that she will have the Opposition's co-operation on that measure. I thank her also for providing time to debate the Social Security Amendment (Lone Parents) Regulations on Tuesday next and for at last providing the debate that we requested on North Atlantic Treaty Organisation enlargement.
I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the matter that the Opposition have chosen to debate on Tuesday next week and, in particular, to paragraph 6 of the second special report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which states:
"The Committee considers that it is wrong in principle for the Executive to seek unilaterally to impose prior conditions on the release of information properly sought by a Select Committee in pursuit of the responsibilities given to it by the House. The views of the House are sought at an early date."
Is the right hon. Lady aware that our motion on Tuesday will reflect those words and that the Opposition will allow a free vote, treating this issue—as it should be treated—

523
as a House of Commons matter? Will the right hon. Lady respond in like spirit and ensure that, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has requested publicly, a free vote is held in the House on that matter?
Is the right hon. Lady in a position to tell us when we can expect statements on the strategic defence review, the comprehensive spending review and the integrated transport White Paper? Much concern is being caused in relation to the latter issue, and I would argue, with great respect, that the Deputy Prime Minister's kite flying is no substitute for a statement on integrated transport policy. Is the right hon. Lady aware that rumours are circulating that the Government's proposals for the North sea oil tax regime will be announced by means of a written reply to a written question? Can she assure me that that is not the case and that there will be a statement about that matter on the Floor of the House?
The right hon. Lady has circulated—as she properly should—her proposals for possible reform of the hours of the House, which she will put before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. I understand, Madam Speaker, that you have made your views known about the matter. Will the right hon. Lady seek your permission to make those views known to all hon. Members—not just those who serve on the Select Committee—so that there may be full consultation and people may know exactly what you think, as well as what the Leader of the House is proposing?
Is the Leader of the House yet in a position to say—I ask on behalf of the staff of the House who serve us so well and so selflessly—whether we shall sit in August?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues, with which I shall deal in turn.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Landmines Bill. I am pleased that we have received sufficient co-operation to make progress on that legislation. There have been discussions through the usual channels with all parties in the House and I hope that we shall continue to make progress. We said all along that we were keen to move on that matter as soon as possible. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House suggested various non-sitting days on which we might consider the measure, and I am glad that we have agreed to use Friday 10 July.
I am pleased also that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that we have been able to meet the requests for debate on the Social Security Amendment (Lone Parents) Regulations. I said some time ago that we were likely to debate NATO enlargement in July.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the words that might appear in the Opposition's motion on Tuesday. I cannot possibly comment on that motion until I have seen it; although I am responsible for many things, I am, fortunately, not responsible for whipping arrangements. No one would discuss whipping arrangements before knowing what any particular motion said, although I might want to amend the Opposition's motion.
The hon. Gentleman asked about dates for various statements that may be made in the near future. I do not normally give dates of statements in advance, but there has been great speculation about certain important statements. I can confirm that some dates are pencilled in provisionally—the strategic defence review for Wednesday 8 July and the comprehensive spending review for the week after—although events sometimes
524
mean that we have to alter the dates that we have in mind. The integrated transport White Paper is expected later this month, and I anticipate a statement being made to the House. I have not considered North sea oil tax revenues, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman on that point; at the moment, I do not have provisional plans for a statement on that before me.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the memorandum that has been submitted to the Modernisation Committee. The Committee is in the early stages of drawing up ideas on potential changes to the parliamentary calendar and, as a whole, is anxious that all hon. Members should make their views known. We are taking steps to ensure that people are aware of that opportunity. I should be more than happy to make sure, with Madam Speaker's permission, that her views were available, and that is something that we can pursue.
Everyone is anxious to know when the recess will be, and, had I been able to announce the precise dates today, I should have been pleased. The most that I can say is that it is clear that the House will not rise before the end of July.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May we have an early debate on how insider dealing investigations are dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry? May I say that, for a fact, Sir Nicholas Lloyd, has never been interviewed by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in connection with the 1994 investigation concerning insider dealing in Anglia Television shares? Do we not need an early debate on that matter, because Sir Nicholas Lloyd has been held out publicly as the source of the tip to a certain well-known individual who traded in shares in January 1994 and made £77,000? We need an explanation.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising issues of that kind at various Question Times. I am afraid that I cannot promise him the debate that he wants in Government time, but perhaps he will be fortunate and obtain an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I hope that, if I add my felicitations on her birthday, the right hon. Lady will be even more co-operative than she has been on private Members' Bills. In the light of what she said last Thursday, is there any way to assist non-controversial private Members' Bill with all-party support not only to complete their passage through this House, but, if they are amended in the House of Lords, to complete their passage in the spillover section when they come back?
Will there be room in the next couple of weeks, or soon thereafter, for a comprehensive debate on arms sales? There is a general view that the Foreign Secretary's views on the Scott report are not fully reflected in the report on strategic export controls published yesterday. It is a timid report, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have an opportunity to examine it.
Before next Thursday's debate on the national health service, will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to correct the no doubt unfortunate and unintentional, but considerable, mistake that he made in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) yesterday? The Leader of the House will recall that my hon. Friend asked

525
what the Prime Minister would do about the severe deterioration in the recruitment position of doctors, and the Prime Minister said:
"medical students are exempt from the new provisions on student finance."—[Official Report, 1 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 355.]
That is simply untrue and I am sure that the Prime Minister will want an early opportunity to put the record straight. Under the new regime, medical, veterinary and dental students will have to pay extensive sums to support their studies in the first three years. An absurd anomaly is that in Scotland they will have to do so for the fourth year as well. Will the Leader of the House give an absolute undertaking that the Prime Minister will correct the record before next Thursday's debate?
Mrs. Taylor: I will check the hon. Gentleman's last point and get in touch with him about it.
On the two substantive points that the hon. Gentleman raised on private Members' Bills, I hope that some of the Bills before the House tomorrow will make progress. Many people think that they are important measures that command widespread support. As I pointed out last week, the House itself decides at the beginning of each Session how much time to give private Members' Bills, but some interesting suggestions have been made about how we could deal with private Members' Bills that need only a vote rather than further debate. The Modernisation Committee will look at that matter in due course. I am open-minded about what we might be able to do and will watch what happens to individual Bills.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was somewhat churlish in saying that no progress had been made on arms sales. The White Paper published yesterday is for consultation, and it takes us further forward. We are willing to listen to further suggestions on how the position might be improved. At the moment, there is clearly no time for a debate on that matter, but views are being sought and will be taken into account.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the speculation in the press in recent days about the possible collaboration between the Labour Government and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and the possibility that he will get a job in a future Cabinet? The other daft idea being carted around is that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will be the next Speaker. May we have an early statement to put an end to all those rumours? While we are at it, will my right hon. Friend tell the others in the Cabinet that they should bury the report from Lord Jenkins about changing to proportional representation and tell him to stick to what he has always done—rushing about trying to find a posh table at a restaurant?
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that I can find time next week for the specific debate that my hon. Friend requests, interesting though it might be, especially to those of us who have been in the House for many years.
On my hon. Friend's specific point, I am not aware that there is any credibility in many of the stories that appear in the press. I am sure that you intend to be in your place for some time yet, Madam Speaker, so any speculation on that front is pretty worthless.
526
On jobs in Cabinet, I promise to bring my hon. Friend's recommendations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the pressure on legislative time revealed by the Landmines Bill, which I welcome, can the Government ensure that Ministers are available to take their business when it occurs so that we avoid the surrealist farce that we had last night of Labour Back Benchers filibustering on the Finance (No. 2) Bill while the Government allegedly retrieved the next relevant Minister from the highlands?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is under some misapprehension. Two days for the Finance Bill was the time that we agreed to give, following discussions through the usual channels. If anyone was absent, it was Opposition Members.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 651?
[That this House believes that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should undertake an urgent review of the standard of motorway driving with a particular view to the need for all newly qualified drivers to undertake some form of motorway tuition and that urgent action should be taken to address the problems that exist and to secure a higher standard of proficiency of motorway driving and to help reduce the present motorway accident level.]
I pay tribute to my constituent, Anne Ravenhill, who, for some years, has vigorously campaigned for motorway driving tuition. The early-day motion has 104 signatures. Anyone who drives on motorways will recognise that this issue is of concern. Does my right hon. Friend see any opportunity of discussing these issues at an early date?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is an experienced Member of the House, and he knows ways of finding time in debates to raise issues that he wants to pursue. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is undertaking a comprehensive examination of driver training issues. My hon. Friend has made points about safety on motorways and about measures that need not penalise newly qualified drivers. That is an important issue, but he will understand that I cannot find time for a debate on it. With his ingenuity, I am sure that he can find other ways of raising this matter.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the right hon. Lady join me in condemning the arson attacks on Roman Catholic chapels in Northern Ireland last night? Such actions are attacks not just on places of worship, but on communities, and they are to be deployed in any community that stands for civil and religious liberty.
Is the right hon. Lady able to tell us when the Northern Ireland constitution Bill will be introduced? Yesterday, we launched the assembly. It is like starting a marathon race without telling people where they are going.
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the whole House wants to be associated with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the arson attacks. Such behaviour unites everyone in the House, and, like him, we want to place our views on record.

527
Discussions are still taking place on the Northern Ireland constitution Bill, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer. He knows that we take Northern Ireland legislation extremely seriously. We have moved quickly to present such legislation when it has been necessary. Much work is being carried out at present, and discussions will continue through the usual channels. As soon as I can give the House information, I shall do so.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about tomorrow's Bills. Is it not a perversion of democracy that 74 Bills will come before Parliament tomorrow? The day has become known as the slaughter of the innocents, because many would-be King Herods can destroy those Bills by shouting a single word. It is wrong for the will of the House to be ignored. One of those Bills received a majority vote of 411, but it is unlikely to get through the system and become law. Bill No. 13 on the Order Paper seeks to tackle by far the worst case of drug misuse in this country, which is the over-prescription of neuroleptic drugs to the elderly in residential homes. We should have a debate on the system that allows Bills that have majority support not to get through Parliament and to be damaged or destroyed by malign or malicious individual Members.
Mrs. Taylor: We had a short debate on that subject last week. Points made in that debate will help the Modernisation Committee when it turns its mind to this subject.
Mr. Wilkinson: I thank the Leader of the House for letting us know that the statement on the strategic defence review will be made on Wednesday of next week. Does that not highlight the fact that, this year, we have had only one debate on one of the three services, the Royal Air Force? It is remiss of the Government not to have given more time to the armed forces. Will she guarantee that, before we rise for the summer recess—preferably in the next two weeks—we will have a two-day debate on the armed forces? If The Times is to be believed, they are likely to lose £1 billion of their budget, which will affect the career prospects of many service men.
Mrs. Taylor: I have said that it is likely, although not absolutely fixed, that that statement will be made on Wednesday.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point, we have had one defence debate—we discuss subjects for debate through the usual channels. I hope that we shall be able to have significant defence debates later in the Session, but I think that, as in other years, the bulk of that time may have to be in the spillover.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House please consider the position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the disclosure of information to Select Committees? The Opposition's zeal to criticise the Government is a grave matter for those of us who want to promote a bipartisan approach in Select Committee considerations. I urge her to lead discussions with other Government managers, and perhaps the Opposition, to establish whether the current impasse can be overcome.
Members of Select Committees should be able to approach matters without private interests or partial affections, so that they can seek the truth and fulfil their
528
duty to oversee Government Departments. That is extremely important in relation to next Tuesday's debate—we must recognise that, if such an approach is to endure, it must be reflected in the vote on Tuesday evening. The debate needs to be treated as a so-called House of Commons matter, so that individual Members of Parliament can vote on the motion without fear or favour and without fear of intimidation by party Whips.
Mrs. Taylor: I think that my hon. Friend will have heard what I said to the deputy shadow Leader of the House, to which I do not have anything to add.
Mr. Graham Brady: May we have an early debate or statement to clarify the relationship between Health Ministers and local health authorities in the decision-making process? I ask that in the light of the astonishing events in Salford and Trafford on Tuesday, when the Secretary of State for Health intervened, using a legal directive procedure—it has been used only once before in the history of the national health service—to require the local health authority to withdraw a properly conducted public consultation exercise merely so that he could avoid adverse publicity when he visited Trafford general hospital on Sunday.
Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health felt that there had been insufficient discussion with the neighbouring authorities before Salford and Trafford health authority issued its consultation document on 1 June. He believed that any proposed changes to children's services should be considered in the context of the establishment of health action zones rather than in isolation. He has a responsibility to take a position on such matters, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should regard that as astonishing. I am also surprised at the implication of what he said—he seemed to imply that he wanted those beds to be lost and that ward to be shut.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Following on from what the Leader of the House said about next Tuesday's debate, will she find time to have an early debate on parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive? Many unpleasant comments are being made about the Leader of the Opposition, but, as someone who suffered from acute sinusitis as a boy, I wish him well—it is one of the most painful conditions that anyone can have. The lack of an effective Opposition gives rise to a fundamental problem, but is it not related to the fact that no fewer than 19 of the appointments that the right hon. Gentleman has made to the shadow Front-Bench team have lucrative outside interests? The most recent announcement is that the shadow President of the Board of Trade is taking money from Murray Financial, a financial firm dedicated to destroying building societies and mutual assurance companies. Is not the real problem that, until we have an effective Opposition, the Executive will not receive the scrutiny that it needs?
Mrs. Taylor: I said earlier that I was not responsible for whipping; thankfully, I am not responsible for the Opposition either.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Leader of the House aware that another important upcoming

529
anniversary is the 10th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster? Some of us have spent the afternoon in the precincts of the House watching a film by one of the survivors, Ed Punchard, which will be broadcast next week.
May I make a request, which I know will be supported by the hon. Members who represent Aberdeen, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and many others, for a debate on the full ramifications of the disaster, to examine whether we got to the bottom of the causes of the incident and how the Cullen changes have been working over the past 10 years?
In particular, we could discuss how the Government's proposals on corporate criminality are progressing—I believe that there is widespread support for such legislative change. As the Leader of the House will understand, many of us were extremely concerned when, in a civil action earlier this year, responsibility and blame were placed on two dead people who had no chance of representing themselves. The issue of corporate liability has never been fully explored.
Will the Leader of the House take my comments on board? Does she accept that only if we have such a debate will we discharge our responsibility not just to those who died on Piper Alpha, but to the many thousands who still work in the North sea?
Mrs. Taylor: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is echoed by my hon. Friends. I did not know about the film that is to be shown next week, but of course I remember the incident, as many others will.
I will take on board the hon. Gentleman's comments. I cannot guarantee him the debate that he wants in the next few weeks, but I assure him that I will draw what he has said to the attention of all Ministers who are concerned with the matter.
Mr. John McDonnell: My right hon. Friend may have read reports over the past two weeks of the near-gridlock of air traffic over Heathrow airport as a result of chronic weaknesses in the air traffic control system. Heathrow is in my constituency, and I am extremely anxious for the safety of my constituents. The Government have acted promptly in launching an investigation. Will my right hon. Friend liaise with her colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, so that when the report of the investigation is completed, it is brought to the House promptly and an important issue of public safety can be debated?
Mrs. Taylor: I will certainly discuss the matter with my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Leader of the House did not announce time for a debate in the next two weeks on the fight against bovine tuberculosis. As she will know, an important report—the Krebbs report—is being considered by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. May I ask her, in all seriousness, to talk to the Minister of State about the possibility of finding time for a debate on the report and on bovine tuberculosis? Many farms in the south-west are disrupted by the disease,
530
and many people in the west midlands and Cheshire are fearful of its spread. It is important that the House should have a chance to debate the implementation of the Krebbs report before the die is finally cast.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present, and has heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are considering how best to implement the recommendations made by Professor Krebbs last December. A good deal of work is going into the issue, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has received many representations from Members whose constituents are extremely worried about the problem.
We are not in a position to make an announcement yet, but all contributions received during the consultation period have been considered carefully. Announcements will be made, but all the views of hon. Members will be taken into account first.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that, before we were committed to going into Bosnia, there was a general indication that it would be for a limited time? In answer to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), my right hon. Friend said that a debate on the strategic defence review would take place later in the Session; presumably, she has November in mind. May we have some reflection on giving an undertaking to the House—I do not ask my right hon. Friend to give it now—that, should there be military commitment in Kosovo or in the Gulf, the House of Commons will be recalled, whatever stage the recess has reached, before any decisions are put into cement?
Mrs. Taylor: I believe that I made the position clear last week, although it may have been two weeks ago. I said that I could not give an absolute undertaking that statements would be made in the House before any decision to deploy troops. However, I also said—and I can confirm—that, operational circumstances permitting, we would seek to keep the House of Commons informed first.
Jackie Ballard: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission presented its annual report to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 15 June. One of its key proposals is to replace the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which set up the commission, with an all-encompassing sex equality law. The report is called "Making Equality Work—the challenge for government". Will there be time in the coming weeks to debate the report and for the Government to say how they intend to respond to the challenge that it presents?
Mrs. Taylor: Important though that report is, I cannot find time for such a debate in the next few weeks. It is an interesting suggestion, and one which members of the Modernisation Committee might bear in mind as typical of the requests that we get for debates that would be non-partisan and useful to the House. The Committee is considering how we could find more time for such debates.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I fully support the request made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

531
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) referred to the second special report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. My right hon. Friend can see at a glance that there were sharp divisions on it, as there were on the first report. I fully expect the Foreign Secretary to make an early statement following the publication of the Legg report, and I would also demand that he initiate a debate on Legg.
The Foreign Secretary should bear in mind the advice given in the ministerial code. Paragraph 28.j on page 12 states:
"Every effort should be made to avoid leaving significant announcements to the last day before a Recess."
That is what the other outfit used to do. I do not want the Government to follow that Conservative tradition. I fully expect the Foreign Secretary to come before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, to answer questions on the Legg findings. It is better for a Select Committee to cross-examine Ministers and officials than for us to attempt to do so in a debate.
Mrs. Taylor: On my hon. Friend's first point, I think that the whole House agrees with the concern that was expressed about Piper Alpha.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Select Committee was sharply split on both reports. Other such matters may emerge in the debate on Tuesday, although we have not yet seen the motion. My hon. Friend asked for an early statement and a debate on Legg. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary may well want to make a statement once the report is published. The inquiry is independent, and it is within the power of Sir Thomas Legg himself to determine the time scale, but I know that he understands the urgency of the matter, and I hope that we will not have to wait too long.
My hon. Friend will know that the most recent letter from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Chairman of the Select Committee made an offer to appear before it; he is still awaiting a reply.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Leader of the House will be aware of the concerns in the British fishing industry, especially in relation to regulation. Will she find time for a debate in the near future, if not next week, so that hon. Members of all parties can express the fact that the industry is concerned not only by the regulation imposed by Europe, and indeed the disparity of enforcement, but by the fact that Her Majesty's Government are now unilaterally imposing further restrictions? The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would then have the opportunity, which he probably would not welcome, to explain what he is doing about it.
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that Ministers would like many debates, but they are as much constrained as anyone else. There simply is not time in the immediate future for all the debates that we would like. I can only advise the hon. Gentleman to apply for an Adjournment debate.
Dr. Brian Iddon: The highest priority for debate in the House is given to fiscal matters. However, the Government regard sustainable development as a high priority, too, and have set up the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, which published its second report today. May I draw my right
532
hon. Friend's attention to just one of the report's many recommendations, which is that there should be a major debate on sustainable development on a Government motion relating to the Committee's annual report? I hope that that recommendation will be taken seriously.
Mrs. Taylor: I will certainly take that recommendation seriously. Clearly it will not be possible to provide time for a debate before the summer recess. I cannot say whether there will be time during the spillover period, but, if there is not, I can bear the subject in mind for debate in future parliamentary years. We attach great importance to that subject and will consider how to take into account the wishes of the Select Committee.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the expenditure policies of North Lanarkshire council? That would give the House a chance to consider the specific and worrying case of a lollipop man who was paid at a rate equivalent to £17,500 a year for working 10 hours a week. Given the right hon. Lady's prodigious reading of the daily newspapers, does she recall that that fortunate individual told The Daily Telegraph on 4 June that he could not believe his luck? He was able to do up his flat, take his wife and kids on holiday and buy a new car as a result of the outrageous profligacy of that Labour council. Will the right hon. Lady enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House in the near future to defend or to condemn that typical record of an old Labour council?
Mrs. Taylor: I am surprised to learn that the main interest of the constituents of Buckingham is the activities of North Lanarkshire council. The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government, unlike the previous one, have acted quickly. We will not tolerate any failure or inefficiency in local government. It is a bit rich for a former adviser to Jonathan Aitken to raise matters of that kind.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the right hon. Lady take account of serious concern on both sides of the House and among our constituents about the congestion of parliamentary business? Many matters will not be debated and considered, including private Members' business, Law Commission reports and Select Committee reports. There are also many Adjournment debates: I understand that Madam Speaker received requests for more than 50 such debates next Wednesday. Will the right hon. Lady put to the Modernisation Committee the urgent need to find other channels for conducting our business so that the work of the House is not impeded by the time constraints that beset us?
Mrs. Taylor: Demand for debates cannot always be met. That is the case in every parliamentary year. The hon. Gentleman mentions some areas in which there is particular pressure, and he knows that the Modernisation Committee has said that it will consider private Members' Bills in future. He is right to say that more could perhaps be done. We should use our imagination to come up with new ideas on how to resolve some of the problems, although I do not think that we will ever be able to satisfy every hon. Member, given the time available.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not wish to prolong our debate, but is there not

533
an old-fashioned code of conduct in the House? Before Members of Parliament attack particular councils, they should at least find out the facts. The intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) relates not to my constituency, but to those of parliamentary neighbours. It is high time that the House was a bit more restrained in throwing around accusations under privilege against people who cannot defend themselves, when there is another side to the story. Would you care to reflect on the old code of conduct which was accepted as a convention, whereby Members of Parliament were careful before attacking councils and other elected bodies?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's words are extremely wise. He has used them before, and on numerous occasions I have reminded the House that with our great privileges also come responsibilities. Before we launch into attacks on other people, we must get our facts absolutely right.

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and a Measure:

National Lottery Act 1998

Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998

National Institutions Measure 1998

Orders of the Day

  Human Rights Bill [Lords]
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 24 June]
  [MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

  Human Rights Bill [Lords]
    New clause 9

      FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION
      '—(1) If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.
      (2) In this section, "court" includes a tribunal.'.—[Mr. Straw.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 13

      FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
      '.—(1) This section applies if a court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression.
      (2) If the person against whom the application for relief is made ("the respondent") is neither present nor represented, no such relief is to be granted unless the court is satisfied—

      (a) that the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent; or

      (b) that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified.

      (3) No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.
      (4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—

      (a) the extent to which—

      (i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public, or

      (ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;

      (b) any relevant privacy code.

      (5) In this section—
      "court" includes a tribunal, and
      "relief' includes any remedy or order (other than in criminal proceedings).'.—[Mr. Straw.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.15 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 1—Breach of right to privacy—
      '.—When a court finds that Article 8 (right to privacy) of the Convention has been breached and that save for the provisions of the Convention and this Act there is no other protection or remedy

      535
      available under United Kingdom law for the party complaining of the breach, the Court shall make a report to Parliament setting out the circumstances of the breach and the action which the Court proposes to take and proceedings shall be stayed until Parliament has debated the report.'.
      New clause 7—Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10—
      '.In any proceedings where a court has to adjudicate between—

      (a) a claim that Convention rights under Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) have been infringed, and

      (b) a claim for protection of Convention rights under Article 10 (Freedom of expression),

      the court shall normally, and particularly where the right to impart or receive information about matters of public interest is at issue, give precedence to rights arising under Article 10.'.
      Mr. Straw: With these new clauses we have an opportunity to debate the potential impact of the Human Rights Bill on the freedom of the press. The issue was debated at some length on different occasions in another place and in this House, particularly on Second Reading on 16 February. Today, I seek to explain to the Committee how Government new clause 13 fulfils the commitment that I gave on that occasion.
      As the Committee will know, there was concern in some sections of the press that the Bill might undermine press freedom and result in a privacy law by the back door. That was not the Government's view. On the contrary, we have always believed that the Bill would strengthen rather than weaken the freedom of the press. In practice, the European convention on human rights has been used in Strasbourg to uphold press freedom against efforts by the state to restrict it. By virtue of clause 2 of the Bill, our courts will be required to take the Strasbourg case law into account. Therefore, we are bringing home not just the rights contained in the convention but the associated jurisprudence, including the importance that the European Court in Strasbourg over the years has attached to freedom of expression.
      On Second Reading, I gave notice that I would place in the Library and make available to Opposition Members an abstract of various judgments made in the Strasbourg court, which spells out the extent to which that court time and again has come down in favour of press freedom as opposed to privacy and the right to family life. I know that Opposition Members will have read and digested the abstract and that that will elevate the standard of debate this afternoon.
      We recognise the concerns expressed in the press. As I have made clear, for example in respect of the Bill's impact on the Churches, we are anxious, so far as is consistent with the framework of the Bill and, above all, with our obligations under the convention, to deal constructively with the concerns expressed about the Bill. In the light of those concerns, we decided to introduce a new clause specifically designed to safeguard press freedom. We thought long and hard about that, and Government new clause 13 is the result. It is an important new clause, and I shall go through its provisions in some detail.
      Subsection (1) provides for the new clause to apply in any case where a court is considering granting relief—for example, an injunction restraining a threatened breach of confidence; but it could be any relief apart from that
      536
      relating to criminal proceedings—which might affect the exercise of the article 10 right to freedom of expression. It applies to the press, broadcasters or anyone whose right to freedom of expression might be affected. It is not limited to cases to which a public authority is a party. We have taken the opportunity to enhance press freedom in a wider way than would arise simply from the incorporation of the convention into our domestic law.
      Subsection (2) provides that no relief is to be granted if the person against whom it is sought—the respondent—is not present or represented, unless the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent or there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified. The courts are well able to deal with the first limb of that exception relating to whether all practical steps have been taken to notify the respondent, and, in the case of broadcasting authorities and the press, rarely would an applicant not be able to serve notice of the proceedings on the respondent.
      The latter circumstance—compelling reasons—might arise in a case raising issues of national security where the mere knowledge that an injunction was being sought might cause the respondent to publish the material immediately. We do not anticipate that that limb would be used often. In the past, such applications have been rare, but there has been at least one recent case involving the Ministry of Defence.
      As I made clear on Second Reading, the provision is intended overall to ensure that ex parte injunctions are granted only in exceptional circumstances. Even where both parties are represented, we expect that injunctions will continue to be rare, as they are at present.
      Subsection (3) provides that no relief is to be granted to restrain publication pending a full trial of the issues unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to succeed at trial. Among concerns expressed about the Bill's possible impact on freedom of the press, there was concern that interim injunctions—known in the trade as Friday night injunctions, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will confirm; I do not doubt that he has been present in the courts on many Friday nights earning an honest crust—might be granted simply to preserve the status quo, with a view to a full hearing of the application later. However, by that time the story that was to be published might no longer be newsworthy. As I said earlier, time and again the convention jurisprudence reinforces the freedom of the press against, for example, the assertion of rights under article 8. One example of that is part of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the 1991 "Spycatcher" case. Dealing with the issue of interlocutory relief, the court said:
      "news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication for even a short period may well deprive it of all its value and interest."
      Given that, we believe that the courts should consider the merits of an application when it is made and should not grant an interim injunction simply to preserve the status quo ante between the parties.
      I hope that this provision will strike a chord with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, who said:
      "Reverting again to my own sphere of practice, the courts frequently have to balance the rights of a plaintiff who has been defamed or is about to be defamed and wants an injunction prior to publication, and the rights of the newspaper or potential defendant who says, 'I shall prove that what I say is true.' In those

      537
      circumstances, at an interlocutory stage, the judge says to the plaintiff, 'I am sorry, but the right to utter an untruth, if it proves to be so, takes precedence over your right to protect your reputation.' The injunction is not granted and the article is published."—[Official Report, 17 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 426.]
      The hon. and learned Gentleman was making the point that, even now, the courts are very reluctant to grant interlocutory relief preventing publication. I gather that in his experience, many more times than not, the courts will say, "I am sorry, but you will just have to take the alleged untruth on the chin and if you want relief later, you can seek damages."
      Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for advertising my practice. I am always grateful for any such small crumbs. I hope that that quotation is an accurate reflection of law and of practical experience. Many potential applications for interlocutory injunctions, whether during the day or late at night, are simply not made because the lawyers advising the plaintiffs anticipate that the defendant newspaper will argue that what is being said is true or partially true or that there is some other substantive defence. They tell their clients not to waste their time going to court because they will lose and have to pay the costs.
      Mr. Straw: That is helpful. The hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates me. I was going to say that in drawing attention to his sphere of practice, we might be breaching the Bar Council's code on advertising, but I think that we should allow ourselves an exception in this case. People on either side of a defamation action would be well advised to seek his advice. He makes the important point that it is already difficult to get interlocutory relief. We are in a sense reinforcing that difficulty, for good reasons that I wholly defend, because of the importance of protecting the right to freedom of expression against other rights.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I support the Home Secretary in what he is saying, but can he confirm that the provision will deal with the Maxwell abuse, where someone who has—or seems to have—a lot of money can intimidate others by the threat of interlocutory applications? Secondly, can he confirm that if there is a way for a potential plaintiff to serve notice on a publisher that what he is about to publish is untrue or in part untrue, it will be taken into account in post-publication action?
      Mr. Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about Maxwell intimidation, we believe that the new clause would protect a respondent potential publisher from what amounts to legal or legalised intimidation. We have already discussed the difficulty of getting interlocutory relief. It will be very difficult to get it unless the applicant can satisfy the court that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed. That is a much higher test than that there should simply be a prima facie case to get the matter into court.
      To paraphrase, the second point of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) concerned a respondent who succeeded in preventing an injunction at the interlocutory stage and then published but it turned
      538
      Out that there had been some breach of the law. He asked whether that could be weighed in the balance in respect of damages.
      Mr. Garnier indicated assent.
      Mr. Straw: The answer from someone much more learned than I is that it could be. We discussed exemplary damages in such situations earlier.
      Mr. Garnier: And aggravated damages
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my continuing education on the issue from the hon. and learned Gentleman. We should all be grateful for that advice because, after all, it is entirely free.
      Mr. Garnier: Up to a point.
      Mr. Straw: Up to a point, the hon. and learned Gentleman says.
      I should at this point explain something that will not be known, with a bit of luck, to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, but may be known to the two Liberal Democrat Members sitting below the Gangway. The existing law in this area in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales. The Scottish courts, in considering whether to grant an interim order restraining publication, will take account of the relative strengths of the case put forward by each party. A Scottish court would be unlikely to grant an interim order unless it was already satisfied that the applicant was likely to establish his case. Therefore, subsection (3) is technically unnecessary in Scotland. It remains true, however, that media activities cross the boundaries of the separate jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, as I rather famously know from my experience at Christmas. For that reason, and because it is right in principle, we believe that the safeguards for freedom of expression contained in the new clause should apply throughout the United Kingdom.
      4.30 pm
      Subsection (4) requires the court to have particular regard to the importance of the article 10 right to freedom of expression. Where the proceedings concern journalistic, literary or artistic material, the court must also have particular regard to the extent to which the material has, or is about to, become available to the public—in other words, a question of prior publication—and the extent to which publication would be in the public interest. If the court and the parties to the proceedings know that a story will shortly be published anyway, for example, in another country or on the internet, that must affect the decision whether it is appropriate to restrain publication by the print or broadcast media in this country.
      Under subsection (4), the court must also have particular regard to any relevant privacy code. Depending on the circumstances, that could be the newspaper industry code of practice operated by the Press Complaints Commission, the Broadcasting Standards Commission code, the Independent Television Commission code, or a broadcaster's internal code such as that operated by the BBC. The fact that a newspaper has complied with the terms of the code operated by the

      539
      PCC—or conversely, that it has breached the code—is one of the factors that we believe the courts should take into account in considering whether to grant relief.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am sorry to take the right hon. Gentleman back slightly, but would he care to amplify on the definition of "the public interest", which is a critical phrase in subsection (4)(a)(ii) of the new clause?
      Mr. Straw: I was hoping not to have my brain exercised in such a challenging way. The courts are well versed in making judgments about the balance between a private interest of an applicant before them and the wider public interest. That is inherent in any case in a clash between article 10 and article 8. It is also inherent in the way in which the courts until now have dealt with many issues surrounding proceedings for defamation. The European convention and the European Court of Human Rights have devoted quite a lot of time and effort to developing the concept of the public interest. Without being too tautologous, one of the points of the public interest is, to quote the words of the Strasbourg court in Handyside v. the United Kingdom in 1976, that
      "freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress, and for the development of every man"—
      and these days, I have no doubt, every woman. That is a brief sketch of a subject on which I have every confidence in the courts' ability to make good judgments in particular cases.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for allowing me to intervene a second time. On the subject of privacy codes, one of the interesting questions that need to be put to publishers, proprietors and editors is: what are their own standards that their own staff are supposed to meet? Obviously, there are times when, in the public interest, they have to investigate—to act like a vacuum cleaner and suck up the dirt—in order to discover what is right and justifiable to print. They do not have an easy job, but, instead of relying solely on the Press Complaints Commission code or the similar requirements for broadcasters, will the Home Secretary confirm that all such organisations ought to have their own standards about which their own staff and freelances know; that those standards should be made public; and that if, when challenged, it is shown that they have fallen below their own standards, as well as below the standards of the PCC or the broadcasting authorities, that would class as a "relevant privacy code" under the legislation?
      Mr. Straw: First, the hon. Gentleman asserts that all those organisations ought to have their own privacy code. I understand his point, but I do not think that it is up to us to assert that an individual private newspaper ought to have its own privacy code. However, it is very much in newspapers' interests to have such a code, because otherwise they would not get the benefit of the relevant limb, which is subsection (4)(b) of the new clause.
      Secondly, I would point out that national newspapers and those belonging to the regional newspaper associations are all members of the Press Complaints Commission; therefore, they have signed up to the PCC code, which, as far as I am aware, is the strongest and certainly the most public press code available. It may well
      540
      be that other newspapers, both those within and those outside the PCC framework, have their own codes on staff conduct. Plainly, the higher the conduct required, the better for the public and—this is why the provision creates a virtuous circle—the better the defence available under the new clause to a newspaper, should it be subject to an application for relief, for example, under article 8.
      Mr. Martin Linton: While my right hon. Friend is still on the subject of subsection (4)(a)(i), I should be grateful if he clarified the exact meaning of the material that is, or is about to become, available to the public; and whether that word "public" would have a geographical limitation. This is a "Spycatcher" clause and the argument used in the "Spycatcher" case was that the material was available to the public in any country other than the United Kingdom. In the only similar case—the one involving my right hon. Friend, to which he referred—the argument used was that the material was available to newspaper readers in Scotland. However, if the term "public" was interpreted in a very narrow way, such arguments might fail.
      Mr. Straw: There is no direct qualification to the word "public" in the new clause. Ultimately, it would be a matter for the courts to decide, based on common sense and proportionality. The fact that the information was available across the globe in very narrow circumstances would not be weighed in the balance. The fact that, in the situation in which I was involved at Christmas, the information was fully public in newspapers in Scotland and, by virtue of that fact, available in newspapers on sale at every London railway terminus and airport, made the notion of protection by an injunction issued in courts covering only England and Wales rather risible. The courts would be bound to take such facts into account. As I said earlier, they would also take into account the extent to which the information was available in another country or on the internet, but in each case, the courts would have to apply balance and proportionality.
      The reference in the new clause to
      "conduct connected with such material"
      is intended for cases where journalistic inquiries suggest the presence of a story, but no actual material yet exists—perhaps because the story has not yet been written.
      Subsection (5) provides that references to a court include references to a tribunal, and that references to relief include references to any remedy or order, other than in criminal proceedings. We drafted the amendment with civil, rather than criminal, proceedings against the media in mind. Without such an exclusion, judges wanting to impose reporting restrictions in a criminal trial would, for example, have to consider any relevant privacy code, although plainly it would not be appropriate in that context.
      Nevertheless, as public authorities, the criminal courts will of course, in the same way as other courts, be required not to act in a way that is incompatible with articles 8 and 10 and other convention rights. The special provision that we are making in new clause 13 does not therefore exempt criminal courts from the general obligations imposed by other provisions of the Bill. However, had we included criminal proceedings under new clause 13, we would have made the running of criminal trials very complicated.

      541
      I hope that the Committee found that explanation useful. I shall now make some general points and then deal with the Opposition new clauses. Much of the debate on this issue in recent months has concerned the Press Complaints Commission. Indeed, amendments were tabled that would have exempted it from the public authority provisions of the Bill.
      As the Committee will know, we did not consider that the idea of exempting any particular organisation from the provisions of the Bill would have been consistent with the scheme of the Bill. Indeed, it could have been inconsistent with the convention as well. In any event, new clause 13 seems to us a better and more thorough response to the concerns that have been expressed.
      As the regulator of the newspaper industry, the PCC has an obvious interest in any amendment to safeguard the freedom of the press. As I explained on Second Reading, Lord Williams of Mostyn and I had been involved in detailed discussions about that with the chairman of the PCC, Lord Wakeham, and we reached an understanding on a framework for amending the Bill.
      The new clause was drafted in consultation with Lord Wakeham and representatives of the national and regional press. They have given it a warm welcome, as Lord Wakeham made clear in a statement earlier today. I am grateful to him for having said:
      "I warmly welcome it"—
      the new clause—
      "as I know does the newspaper industry—and am grateful for the skilful way the Government has dealt with the potential problems."
      The Government have always made clear our support for effective self-regulation as administered by the Press Complaints Commission under its code of practice. We have also said that we have no plans to introduce legislation creating a general law of privacy. On the question of prior restraint, our intention, as I said in the House on 16 February, is that the thresholds that the new clause sets will mean that interlocutory injunctions should be granted ex parte only in the most exceptional of circumstances.
      Similarly, on self-regulation, the new clause provides an important safeguard by emphasising the right to freedom of expression. Our intention is that that should underline the consequent need to preserve self-regulation. That effect is reinforced by highlighting in the amendment the significance of any relevant privacy code, which plainly includes the code operated by the PCC.
      I am glad that we have been able to frame an amendment that reflects the Government's stated commitment to the maintenance of a free, responsible press, and the consequent need for self-regulation, while maintaining the protection of the convention that all our citizens should, and do, enjoy.
      I have explained the effect that we want to achieve with our new clause. If, for any reason, it does not work as we envisage, and press freedom appears at risk, we shall certainly want to look again at the issue. I shall now deal briefly with the Opposition new clauses.
      New clause 1 would provide that if a court finds a breach of article 8—the article concerning the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence—for which domestic law apart from the
      542
      Bill provides no remedy, the court must give Parliament a report setting out the circumstances of the breach and the action that it proposes to take. The court proceedings would be adjourned until Parliament had debated the report.
      4.45 pm
      I assume that that is intended to discourage the courts from developing a law of privacy on the sole basis of article 8's being given further effect in domestic law. But I must tell the Opposition that there are several difficulties in such an amendment, although of course I understand why it has been put forward as a vehicle for a debate about the connection between the development of the common law and that of the statutory law.
      First, such an amendment would not prevent the courts from developing a law of privacy through the existing common law, for example by developing the law on breach of confidence, which has advanced to quite a degree over the past three decades. Secondly, the requirement to adjourn proceedings pending parliamentary consideration of a court report would add to delays in the court system. Thirdly, there is no provision for what is to happen after Parliament has debated the report. In particular, there would be nothing to prevent the court from proceeding to grant a remedy for a breach of article 8.
      Fourthly, and above all, I urge the Committee to recognise a profound error in the thinking behind new clause 7, which collides with a fundamental pillar of our constitution—the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. It is one of the bases of the rule of law that the courts should be able to say whatever they want, even if that is inconvenient or unacceptable to Members of Parliament and Ministers. So long, but only so long, as the courts are willing to show that independence, can there be a democracy and the rule of law in this country, or in any other country.
      To interweave the legislature and the judiciary would lead judges to think, "My intellect, wisdom and sense of public purpose require me to do one thing, but on the other hand I have Parliament looking over my shoulder suggesting that I do something else." That seems to me unacceptable, so I hope that the Opposition will not press that point too far.
      New clause 7 would provide that in a case where a court had to decide between a claim under article 8 and a claim under article 10, it should normally give precedence to the article 10 rights. That would be especially so in connection with the right to impart or receive information about matters of public interest.
      The difficulty with that new clause is that it goes further than the terms of the convention and Strasbourg case law. Nothing in the convention suggests that any one right is normally to be given precedence over any other right. The courts will need to balance the competing claims and come to a decision on the facts of each case, taking account of any relevant Strasbourg case law. Although the European Court of Human Rights has stressed the great importance attaching to the right to freedom of expression, it has not gone as far as new clause 7 would go.
      I remind the Opposition that the same issue arose on the question of how far we could protect the position of the Church under new clause 9, which the Committee has

      543
      approved. Then, we said that where an issue of the exercise of religious freedom under the convention came up, the court should have particular regard to the importance of that right. That is exactly what we are saying in subsection (4) of new clause 13; we use the phrase "particular regard".
      So far as we are able, in a manner consistent with the convention and its jurisprudence, we are saying to the courts that whenever there is a clash between article 8 rights and article 10 rights, they must pay particular attention to the article 10 rights. I think that that is as far as we could go, and I hope that, on consideration, the Opposition will think so, too. We must strike a balance, and we believe that in new clause 13 we have got the balance right.
      I repeat that I am extremely grateful to Lord Wakeham and his colleagues for all the consideration that they have given to helping us to achieve what I believe is a proper balance.
      Sir Norman Fowler: As the Home Secretary said, new clause 13 is important; as he also mentioned, we have tabled new clauses of our own on the same subject. I begin by declaring an interest, as I did earlier, as non-executive chairman of Regional Independent Media, which publishes newspapers in both Yorkshire and Lancashire.
      The only difference between the Home Secretary and me concerns the relative merits of the Lancashire Evening Post and the Lancashire Evening Telegraph. I shall try to educate the right hon. Gentleman about the former; I know that he is familiar with the latter.
      The new clause is not exclusively about newspapers. Just as important, it covers broadcasting and any other areas where the right to freedom of expression may be affected. This is not remotely to do with party politics. I acknowledge that there are differing views in both our parties—I say that to protect myself at the outset from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
      The Government have repeatedly said—this is my first general point—that they do not intend to introduce a general law of privacy. The Home Secretary has stated that the Government do not accept that there is a case for general legislation on the matter. Others would take a different view; as it happens, mine is the same as the Home Secretary's. There are hon. Members who believe that we need a new law—there have been a range of attempts to introduce one over the past 10 years. We can all agree—whatever our stance on a general law of privacy—that we should not like a new privacy law to come in by accident, by mistake, or by the back door.
      It is one thing to set out proposals openly and for debate; it is quite another to slip through regulations without their full consequences being understood.
      Clause 1 sets out the European convention rights that are given effect by the legislation—including article 8, which concerns respect for private and family life. That article states that a public authority should not, except in certain exceptional circumstances, interfere with the exercise of a right to that respect: in other words, it is the right of privacy.
      Article 10, by contrast, sets out a right to freedom of expression and to publish information. Clearly, a balance must be struck between the two rights. The right to free speech and free reporting is, after all, basic in a democratic society.
      544
      When last we debated this issue in Committee, I offered the example of Mrs. Maclean, the wife of the traitor Donald Maclean who disappeared to Russia with Burgess. When she was left behind, the Daily Express watched her and was roundly condemned for that alleged intrusion on her privacy. In the end, however, she did exactly what the newspaper thought she would, and disappeared behind the iron curtain. That is perhaps an extreme example of the possible clash between the privacy of the individual and a newspaper's freedom to report.
      That is why new clause 7 tries to inject some certainty, by stating that a court shall,
      "where the right to impart or receive information about matters of public interest is at issue, give precedence to rights arising under Article 10."
      That is a rather broad-brush approach, and I do not intend to press the new clause—but we wanted to set out our view.
      My second general point is that clause 6 makes it unlawful
      "for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right."
      The Home Secretary, not entirely without reason, glossed over this part of the debate. What is and what is not a public authority is crucial, but we have been subjected to a bewildering range of Government advice on that— [Interruption.] I note that the right hon. Gentleman is looking for his folder, so I shall give him time to look up what he needs.
      On Second Reading in another place, the Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that he anticipated that the BBC would be a public authority, that Channel 4 might be one, and that commercial television might not be. Even more dramatically, the Lord Chancellor proceeded on the basis that the Press Complaints Commission was not a public authority and was therefore not covered.
      According to The Guardian—the Home Secretary and I are both devoted readers—the Lord Chancellor dismissed with contempt any argument against his stance, in particular the protests of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. He did so on the ground that the Secretary of State was only a layman, whereas the Lord Chancellor was an experienced lawyer. As it happened, the layman was right; I can only hope that his victory will serve him well in the forthcoming reshuffle. I doubt whether it will, but he deserves credit for being right on this issue.
      Mr. Straw rose—
      Sir Norman Fowler: The Home Secretary is coming to the aid of the Lord Chancellor.
      Mr. Straw: As the Committee will know, even Homer nodded. It shows the Lord Chancellor's generosity of spirit that he came back and said that, on further consideration, his initial view had been incorrect, and there was
      "a disposition on the part of the Courts to regard the PCC as a 'public authority'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 784.]

      545
      As to our interpretation of clause 6—the acts of public authorities—I can say without exaggeration that my postbag has been almost full of compliments for the exquisite clarity with which I presented an interpretation of how clause 6 would operate—
      Jane Kennedy: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Straw: I look forward to more such letters arriving by the hour. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will ultimately accept that clause 6 is the best and more workable definition of public authorities that we could achieve.
      Sir Norman Fowler: "Exquisite clarity" is not exactly the phrase that comes to my mind, but I acknowledge that the Lord Chancellor admitted that he had made a mistake. On 18 November, he said, having previously said precisely the opposite, that it was possible that the Press Complaints Commission would, after all, be held to be a public authority under the Bill when it became law. An opinion given to the PCC by David Pannick QC had persuaded him that it probably would be. That confirms, of course, that the Lord Chancellor made a spectacular legal U-turn.
      Now, after several months of rather tortuous progress, we can all agree that the PCC is indeed a public authority and will be covered, joining other organisations such as the BBC.
      That brings me to my third general point. The Government had two possible ways of extricating themselves. They could try to define which organisations were covered and which were not. In Committee, the Opposition tabled an amendment to have some light shed on that. Alternatively, the Government could table a new clause that sought to govern the operation of the legislation—which is what the Home Secretary has done today. I welcome that. The new clause tabled by the Home Secretary is important and takes us forward in the debate.
      Government new clause 13 emphasises the importance of the convention right to freedom of expression. That was also the purpose of our new clause 7, so we welcome the Government's proposal. It is right that we should preserve the present position and guard the freedom of speech and freedom to report. It should be stressed that the new clause does not apply just to the press. We tend to conduct the debate as if only newspapers were affected, but it applies also to broadcasting organisations—television and radio.
      Mr. Garnier: Should we not also bear in mind the fact that the debate also applies to ordinary members of the public, who have the right to express themselves?
      5 pm
      Sir Norman Fowler: Indeed; the debate goes very wide. It has tended to concentrate exclusively on the press. I am delighted that everyone thinks so highly of newspapers, but it should be recognised that other forms of media also report, expose and reveal. If we had named the Press Complaints Commission as an exempt body, that might have helped the press, but it would have done
      546
      nothing for television or radio reporting. However, the Government and the PCC, which provided help, have found a useful way through.
      The Government's new clause requires courts, when judging what is justifiable or unjustifiable, to take account of any relevant privacy code. I hope that the Home Secretary will confirm my understanding that although broadcasting and the press will be covered, they will not necessarily be covered by exactly the same rules, for the good reason that the privacy code operated by the Press Complaints Commission can be different in some respects from the code operating in broadcasting.
      Perhaps that difference is more apparent than real. The PCC states:
      "Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence. A publication will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent."
      The public interest is the exception, and includes
      "detecting or exposing crime…protecting public health and safety."
      Many of those conditions are repeated in the Broadcasting Standards Commission's code, which states:
      "An infringement of privacy has to be justified by an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information."
      It also mentions detecting crime, disreputable behaviour, protecting public health or safety, and so on.
      I welcome the Government's proposal to tighten the law on interim injunctions. It cannot be right in principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) pointed out, that a system can be used to prevent the truth from being told—I fear that that is sometimes intended—provided that a person is wealthy enough and legally well advised. I shall leave it to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough to elaborate.
      Other questions need to be asked. Our new clause 1, which we shall not press, was designed to allow us to examine the possibility that a law of privacy will be developed by the courts in any event. I should prefer any such attempt to be straightforward and open. The Government do not favour a law of privacy. How will they respond if one is developed for them by the courts? It is predicted by none other than the Lord Chancellor that that will happen.
      Another question arises from an interview given by the Lord Chancellor to the New Statesman in February. He advocated that the Press Complaints Commission should develop a mechanism for prior restraint—in other words, that the PCC should order a paper not to publish under certain circumstances. It is certainly not a power which the PCC wants; I could put that much more strongly. Will the Home Secretary take the opportunity to say that that is no part of the Government's plans?
      Assuming that the Home Secretary can satisfy us on that, I am content with his new clause, which meets the concerns that we have expressed and were eloquently expressed in the other place. I share the right hon. Gentleman's belief in the system of self-regulation—for example, the Press Complaints Commission. We underestimate the effect that such a system, and the prospect of an investigation, has on the working journalist. That was true when I was a working journalist years ago, in the days of the Press Council, and it is true today.

      547
      It must always be remembered that the task of a newspaper is to reveal and expose. At the best, it exposes criminals and fraudsters. At the worst, it can reveal issues that seem to have no true public interest. Making a judgment against publication and about what is or is not in the wider public interest is full of peril.
      In conclusion, I shall tell a story entirely against myself. In 1966, when I was a journalist, I was writing a series of articles on prisons for The Times. I visited Dartmoor prison, where there was nothing for me to do at lunchtime, so I went out on to the moors and ate my sandwich in one of the fields there. My attention was taken by a man working alone in a field near my parked car. He was a giant of a man. When I returned to the prison, I mentioned my lunchtime companion. There were knowing looks, and finally one of the senior staff said, "For goodness' sake don't report that. That's Frank Mitchell, the mad axeman. He has been in prison half his life, and we think we are getting him to the point when he can be released."
      Mitchell had been sentenced to life imprisonment in 1958 for robbery with violence. He was only 29, and he had been under some form of restriction since the age of nine. I had a choice. I could have reported the story, and I guarantee that the rest of Fleet street would have followed it, or I could have taken the advice of the prison staff who knew Mitchell best, and whose view was that it would have done infinite harm to his rehabilitation for that to be reported. I chose not to report that story.
      Ten weeks later, in December 1966, Mitchell escaped or, more accurately, was taken by several others. He was never seen again. Three years later, the Kray twins and several others stood accused of his murder. They were found not guilty, but one person was found guilty of helping the escape. The theory was that when the hue and cry got too hot, the man was killed. There is no question but that Frank Mitchell was killed and has never been seen since.
      The totally detached journalist would have written the story and not concerned himself with the consequences. As it turned out, that would have been very much in the interests of the unfortunate Mr. Frank Mitchell. My conclusion is that function of the press is to report, to reveal and to expose. We will get into all kinds of difficulties if we interfere with the freedom to report. With that in mind, I welcome the Government's proposal. I shall certainly support the new clause.
      Mr. Clive Soley: I shall be brief. I am very interested in the proposed new clause 13, and I welcome it. The Home Secretary will know that we have worked long and hard to try to balance privacy with freedom of the press, and this is as good a chance of success as we are likely to get.
      I welcome the Government's efforts, because we are beginning to piece together several laws that protect both freedom of the press and individuals' rights. The Data Protection Bill—which we shall consider later—protects the public by requiring accuracy in the press. Members of the public will have the right to view the files held on them by the press—which might result in some 650 Members of Parliament queueing outside editors' offices on the day that the legislation comes into force.
      I do not share the Home Secretary's confidence that voluntary regulation will work—it has always seemed to me to be a triumph of hope over experience. However,
      548
      as I should like it to work, I am more than willing to give it a shot. I am anxious about balancing articles 8 and 10 of the European Court and how they will deal with the ordinary cases that appear in the press. The Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), referred to such a case.
      We often talk about privacy only in terms of how it relates to the late Princess Diana, a famous film star or a famous politician. The reality is that only a minority of complaints to the Press Complaints Commission deal with privacy. It is also important to appreciate that many of the most serious abuses involve ordinary people, not the rich and the powerful. I am fairly relaxed if a person in a powerful position who is used to dealing with the media gets a rough ride, not because that is necessarily just, but because it is difficult to intervene in such a case.
      I shall describe several test cases. The first involves the helicopter winchman who, in January this year, rescued nine people from a sinking freighter off the Shetland Islands. Unfortunately, after he had landed the last sailor, he was swept to his death by a giant wave. That man's son was hounded by the press and surrounded by photographers, and he made a rather desperate plea to be allowed to grieve in peace. That is a classic case for enforcing article 8, which protects family rights, in order to allow the son to grieve properly.
      The individual's rights must be balanced against press freedom, but I should have thought that a court would rule in favour of family rights in such a case. I ask the Minister not to reach a conclusion about that case, but to confirm whether I am correct in thinking that people who are the target of that sort of harassment and invasion of privacy would be able to go to a local court and invoke their right indirectly, through the human rights legislation—perhaps it may be necessary to provide legal aid in such cases—to stop that harassment and invasion of privacy during the grieving period prior to a funeral.
      That first case is about expense and access to the courts by an individual who is caught up in tragic circumstances. The most typical cases of that type involve people who have been recently bereaved in rather dramatic circumstances and who are not public figures. They are the people about whom I am interested.
      I have grouped together several other cases involving people who cannot act for themselves. On 5 May this year, the Daily Mirror published details of expenditure at a prison shop by a well-known notorious criminal, who is currently serving a sentence in Broadmoor secure hospital for a number of murders and is a recluse and a psychotic. The newspaper had obtained those details from another prisoner, which was, in itself, a questionable operation. Although the man did not spend very much money—he purchased bars of chocolate, toothpaste and things of that nature, which amounted to only a few pounds—the story concluded that, because the man was receiving benefit, like all patients in secure hospitals, all other benefits in his savings account should be taken from him and given to his victims.
      Leaving aside the argument about whether we should put criminals in a particular category and not give them any benefits, the case involved a prisoner in a secure hospital, who was therefore a patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 and had a right to privacy. Who will intervene on a person's behalf and call into question the balance between articles 8 and 10 in such a case?

      549
      5.15 pm
      There are equally difficult cases involving children. It is unacceptable that children are frequently caught up in similar situations. On 7 May this year, the Daily Mail named a four-year-old child, whose photograph appeared on the front page of that paper, in the context of a story about the child's grandmother who had had the child's mother sent to prison. From my understanding of the story, the grandmother probably took the right action: the mother was involved in drugs, and so on. However, I question the newspaper's judgment in putting the name and photograph of that child on the front page. As I have said before, the last thing that a small child needs is for a mass circulation tabloid to print his or her name and photograph on its front page announcing that the child's grandmother had sent the mother to prison.
      Who will intervene in such cases? The grandmother was clearly not prepared to do so in that case—perhaps she was poorly advised about the role of the media in that situation. Children must receive some protection, and I believe that article 8 will address that problem. That protection must be balanced against press freedom and, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, it is a delicate balance.
      I suspect that the Minister will respond by saying that the solution involves case-made law, and he is probably right. However, the purpose of my intervention is to flag the importance of ensuring access to the law by people who are often on low incomes, who may be inarticulate and who, above all, are not experienced in handling the media and do not know about available remedies. Those people need the protection of article 8, and the courts must look carefully at privacy and the needs of family life when judging such cases.
      We should not confuse those cases—as has occurred too often in the past—with the rights of the great, the powerful and the rich to privacy and freedom of the press. We must focus on the everyday cases that appear in so many tabloid newspapers. At present, ordinary people cannot get protection of the type that I hope the proposed new clause will provide. I think that it will meet that need, but any information that the Minister can provide in his winding-up speech will be welcomed by those who might wish to consider this discussion if they find themselves in similar circumstances.
      Mr. Garnier: I begin, as I did on another occasion, by declaring my interest as a practitioner at the Bar in this area of law. However, that is perhaps not necessary, given that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the Home Secretary have declared it for me. I fear that my colleagues in chambers will snigger when they read the Hansard—if they get around to it—and see the kind things that the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend have said about my prowess as a lawyer. However, I shall leave it there and bask in the glory, for what it is worth.
      The Home Secretary said at the outset that some people feared that the Bill would undermine press freedom, but he went on to say that proposed new clause 13 would enhance press freedom. He cited the agreement of my noble Friend Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, as evidence of that. The noble Lord has certainly welcomed the new clause, but whether it necessarily follows that it is a good thing is another
      550
      matter altogether. I do not have any huge or principled objections to new clause 13. I suggest, rather offensively, that it may do a little good and some harm—although I accept not very much.
      My main point is that I am not sure that the new clause is altogether necessary. I shall not encourage anyone to vote against it, if that assists the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, but I sometimes become wary about undue cross-party cosiness when there are questions that should be tested with rigour. In the debate on the Crime and Disorder Bill, I made that point about anti-social behaviour orders, about which there seemed to be perfectly sensible cross-party agreement. I thought it right to tease out one or two issues then, and I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I have another go on this question.
      The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), to give him his new title—
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend represented Hammersmith, North when I was first elected.
      Mr. Garnier: How times have changed. In those days, of course, many things were different, as the Home Secretary will no doubt remember.
      The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, in his own way, highlighted the point that the press often forget, find it convenient to forget, or fail to distinguish between two separate concepts: what is the public interest or in the public interest, and what is interesting to the public. From time to time, they defend stories that are of no genuine public interest but which they reckon will sell a lot of newspapers—stories that are interesting to the public. We should be aware of that point, and the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush put his finger on it by drawing certain cases to our attention.
      We occasionally consider such cases in our pastoral role as Members of Parliament, when we assist our constituents, but when we come to Westminster and enter the Chamber, we suddenly put on a different overcoat—that of a very important person—and think that the press should pay particular attention to our rights. However, it is more important for Members of Parliament to protect the interests of their constituents—the small people who do not have access to expensive lawyers and who need us to protect their interests against the big battalions. I applaud the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush for making that point.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and the Home Secretary said that this issue is to do with not only the press in the widest sense—I include within that ambit the electronic media such as television and radio—but the rights of expression of ordinary citizens, to which the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush referred. I hope that we can protect those rights, just as much as I hope that we can construct a suitable balance between the rights of the press, and our rights and the rights of other citizens.
      I shall briefly outline what I think is the current state of the law with regard to libel and confidence. They represent the two most easily available courses of action available under the common law which the new clause attempts to bolster. In respect of libel, there are already rules of sufficient quality to protect defendants—potential

      551
      publishers—because, first, the plaintiff must show that what the defendant intends to publish is, with reasonable certainty, capable of being defined. The plaintiff could not go to a judge and say, "I fear that someone is going to say something nasty about me." He would have to persuade the court that particular defamatory allegations were about to be published, so, much as I would sometimes like it to be the case, there would not be, for example, a blanket injunction saying, "Don't talk about Edward Garnier in tomorrow's paper—that won't do."
      Secondly, the plaintiff must show that what the defendant intends to publish is plainly defamatory of him. In that respect, the Home Secretary was kind enough to recount something that I said last week. If the defendant said to the judge, "I will justify it and prove it to be true," or said that he would rely on another substantive defence such as qualified privilege or fair comment, the judge would say, "That does not permit the granting of an interim injunction." It is my understanding that the blanket rule can be overcome only if the judge is persuaded at the interlocutory hearing that those defences—justification, or qualified privilege or fair comment—are bound to fail. Indeed, it is rare for a judge to reach a conclusion of that sort on affidavit. Such matters are normally left to the constitutional tribunal of fact—the trial.
      Thirdly, the plaintiff must normally notify a defendant of his application and, if the defendant does not attend the hearing, should tell the court what he genuinely believes the defendant's position to be. I have been at this game for 20 or 25 years and, in my experience, it is unheard of for a person to go to a judge's house to try a Friday night job without expecting him to say, "What will the defendant respond to your application? Will he say that it is true, or that he does not intend to publish what you think that he is going to say?" The plaintiff would be tested, and I am not entirely convinced that new clause 13 does any more than is already provided.
      With all the diffidence at my command, I suggest that the new clause adds nothing in practice, except perhaps the imposition of an obligation on the court to express a view about the ultimate merits of an application before trial. Indeed, the Home Secretary was candid enough to make that clear when he went through new clause 13(3), referring to the words:
      "No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed."
      He translated that into "likely to succeed at trial". Out of the mouth of the Home Secretary came a requirement on the tribunal to reach at an early stage—when evidence is broadly unformulated and the issues not entirely defined—a pretty firm conclusion about the result of the trial.
      In respect of confidentiality, the current rules provide sufficient protection to a defendant because, first, a plaintiff must satisfy the court that what is intended to be published is confidential and, secondly, an injunction would not be granted if the public interest in disclosure was significantly strong or the information was already in the public domain. If the plaintiff discharges the first of those criteria, and the defendant cannot satisfy the court about the second, the injunction serves to protect the confidence until the trial, which can, in appropriate cases, be expedited.
      552
      When discussing the granting of an injunction in a confidence case, the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, deliberately used the pun, "Confidential information is rather like a block of ice: once it is exposed to the full glare of the sun, it melts." We should be careful about exposing potential plaintiffs' rights to the protection accorded to confidential information where such information would lose its value if publication were not restrained. That is the obverse of the Home Secretary's point about newsworthy stories: if such stories are restrained, they can lose their newsworthiness and the value of publishing can be lost over a few hours or a weekend. We have to do a little more than worry about the newsworthiness of newspaper stories and the concerns of editors to beat the competition to a particular exciting story. To come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, we are also here to protect the interests of the small man.
      My third point on the question of confidentiality is that the new clause involves a full trial of the issues on the application, which in many respects can be practically impossible, and the risk is that the subject matter of the action will be destroyed before trial. It may turn out after a full investigation that the plaintiff was right all along. It will be little comfort to him in six months' time if the full trial agrees that the information was confidential and should not have been disclosed. What use is that to the plaintiff? By virtue of clauses 2 and 6, the court will, in any event, have to have regard to jurisprudence under articles 8 and 10 of the convention in dealing with such applications. Can the Home Secretary persuade me that the new clause does not conflict with article 8 by preventing the courts from protecting article 8 rights before trial? That matter concerns me a little, but I am sure that the Home Secretary can resolve my doubts in his usual way.
      Mention was made of the existing law and of articles 8 and 10. I have not yet seen, as I should have, the paper that the Home Secretary has placed in the Library of the House, but if it is based on the learning in a text book written by Toulson and Phipps, I probably know what it says.
      Mr. Straw: It is Deposit 6042, which I placed in the Library of the House on Second Reading. I have a copy before me and further copies are available in the Library.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Garnier: I am amazed at the Home Secretary's command of command numbers—
      Mr. Straw: It is a deposit.
      Mr. Garnier: I shall not worry about the Home Secretary's deposits. I simply repeat my confession that I have not read it. However, if it says what I suspect that it says, it contains a lot of wise words.
      Although the convention has not yet been domesticated—or, to use the Home Secretary's words, deposited—within British statute law, the courts are increasingly taking into account the jurisprudence of the European Court in so far as it deals with articles 8 and 10. The Home Secretary will know of the case of the Crown

      553
      v. Khan and the wise words of the, sadly, late Chief Justice Lord Taylor. He said that from the authorities that he cited,
      "it is clear that it is permissible to have regard to the Convention, which is of persuasive assistance, in cases of ambiguity or doubt. In the circumstances of the present case the position is neither ambiguous or doubtful; nor is it incumbent on us to consider whether there was a breach of article 8, and we do not propose to do so."
      Thus, the Court of Criminal Appeal took a flexible and sensible approach to the jurisprudence of the European Court, despite the fact that it was not part of English domestic law.
      In article 10 cases, the Court of Appeal in the House of Lords has again taken a sensible approach to making use of European Court jurisprudence. In the case of Rantzen v. Mirror Group Newspapers in 1986, Lord Justice Neill noted that the courts had no power to enforce convention rights directly, but might refer to the convention for assistance to resolve an ambiguity in English legislation or when considering the exercise of a discretion. He went on to say:
      "Where freedom of expression is at stake, however, recent authorities lent support for the proposition that article 10 has a wider role and can be properly be regarded as an articulation of some of the principles underlying the common law."
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) would be the first to admit, there is an awful lot of good in the convention, of which we need not be frightened, and I am not. All I am saying is that, by virtue of the sensible way in which our common law has developed with the assistance of the convention, we may not need new clause 13 because it does no more than what we are already doing. If the Home Secretary can persuade me that it is not simply a gesture—I see the Home Secretary shake his head disapprovingly. If he can persuade me that the new clause is not being inserted in the Bill simply to placate my noble Friend Lord Wakeham and the barons, big and small, of the press, I shall be grateful to him.
      Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), will wind up the debate. The new clause is no sense a gesture. Anyone who reads it can see that it provides important substantive and procedural safeguards for those seeking to rely on article 10 rights.
      Mr. Garnier: I am always happy to take the Home Secretary at his word and, during the Bill's proceedings, my happiness to do so has increased. I accept his assurance that the new clause is not simply a gesture, although I am still not entirely sure that it is strictly necessary. I have no quarrel with the message underlying the new clause, even if it is not a gesture. If it is of any comfort to anybody, I shall not invite the Committee to divide on it.
      I wish to anticipate some remarks that may be made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). He was concerned about the use of the word "public" in subsection (4)(a)(i), which says:
      "the extent to which…the material has, or is about to, become available to the public".
      He may find help from the wise words of the noble and learned Lord Bridge in a case that involves his former employer, the publishers of The Guardian, in the
      554
      "Spycatcher" case. Those Committee members who took an interest in that aspect of press freedom will remember that the House of Lords upheld the then Attorney-General's application for an injunction to restrain the publication of information that was confidential to the Government. However, Lord Bridge gave a powerful dissenting judgment. He was dealing with information that was made available to the public outside the jurisdiction of the court, and he said:
      "I can see nothing whatever, either in law or on the merits, to be said for the maintenance of a total ban on discussion in the press of this country of matters of undoubted public interest and concern which the rest of the world now knows all about and can discuss freely…The maintenance of a ban, as more and more copies of the book Spycatcher enter this country and circulate here, will seem more and more ridiculous. If the Government are determined to fight to maintain the ban to the end, they will face inevitable condemnation and humiliation by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Long before that they will have been condemned at the bar of public opinion in the free world."
      Lord Bridge, although in the minority in the Judicial Committee in the House of Lords, was proved rights because the European Court disapproved of the injunction and awarded The Guardian and its sister newspaper, The Observer, £100,000, and The Sunday Times £100,000. That underlines the humiliation point and goes some way towards answering the concerns of the hon. Member for Battersea about information that is in the public domain but not necessarily confined to the jurisdiction of our courts.
      That is quite enough from me. The Home Secretary is getting fidgety and obviously wishes to leave. It was polite of him to remain in the Chamber to listen to my warblings. I hope that the Under-Secretary can allay some of my gentle fears that the new clause is unnecessary, albeit well intended.
      Mr. Linton: I rise to support new clause 13 as someone who has never seen what is wrong with a law on privacy. The Home Secretary says that he is not in favour of a general law on privacy—and I accept that—but this proposal is a law about privacy, because it incorporates in our law the words of article 8 of the European convention, which guarantees privacy in people's private and family life and in their correspondence.
      The Bill may not be solely about privacy, but it deals with the subject as I imagined a privacy Bill would do. Crucially, it determines where the principle of privacy ends and freedom of the press begins. By saying that the court must "have particular regard" to article 10, the new clause establishes, in the fairest possible way, a balance between article 8 on privacy and article 10 on freedom of the press. New clause 7 would put undue weight on one rather than on the other. Subsection (2)(a) and (b) of new clause 13 solve the problem of Maxwell-type ex parte injunctions, and subsection (4)(a) deals with the "Spycatcher" issue to which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) referred. Subsection (4) brings the Press Complaints Commission within its ambit.
      It has always surprised me that Lord Wakeham has been opposed to this measure. He has argued that self-regulation has been an unsung success story. Self-regulation of the press has been a success in the sense that it has defended the press against regulation for many years, but it has not been a success in protecting the public from the press.

      555
      I have never believed overly in self-regulation. Life is a jungle. I can conjure up a picture of the jungle in which it is decided that too many children from the neighbouring villages have been eaten by tigers and in which self-regulation is introduced. The high council of the jungle discusses how the restraint can be exercised. Baloo the bear says to Shere Khan, "Could you kindly eat a quota of babies next week? Do not eat too many. Restrain yourself a little."
      The Press Complaints Commission is based on a similar principle, because it comprises the editors of several national newspapers, including the editors of the Daily Mail, until the recent death of Sir David English; The Sunday Times; The Sporting Life; and the Sunday Mail. In the recent past, it has included the editors of the Sunday People and the News of the World. I am not suggesting that any of those individuals are incapable of self-restraint, but the principle involved in self-regulation is strange, because it assumes that newspaper editors are the best people to protect the public against the press.
      It also surprised me that Calcutt, at the end of his long inquiry, recommended against a privacy law, although he was in favour of a law against bugging, burgling and telephoto pictures. Eighteen months later, in the light of experience, when he reviewed his own report, he recognised that the Press Complaints Commission was not an effective regulator of the press and he recommended a statutory press complaints tribunal.
      It is strange that many years after Calcutt came to that fair conclusion, so many people resisted that recommendation. Only 27 out of 3,023 cases before the PCC in 1996—the last year for which figures are available—were upheld. It cannot be maintained that such regulation is a success. I have been alarmed at the reluctance with which the press, and Lord Wakeham in particular, have conceded inch by inch that press regulation is inadequate. That has became more and more obvious, particularly in relation to events involving the royal family. A few days after the death of the Princess of Wales, Lord Wakeham said:
      "Motorbike chases, stalking and hounding are unacceptable",
      as though he had just been driven to that conclusion. The PCC amended the privacy code to make it clearer that it was over-zealous to hound someone on a motorbike.
      5.45 pm
      According to opinion polls, almost 90 per cent. of the public favour a privacy law. As The Guardian, my former employer, said, this is a type of privacy Bill: it is not solely about privacy, but while Lord Wakeham, as the watchdog, has been guarding the patio doors, a privacy Bill has slipped through the cat flap. I am very glad that it will be on the statute book.
      I do not have an interest as such to declare, but I have an interest in that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and I have been, respectively, night lawyer and night reporter on The Guardian, and on many occasions we have been at the sharp end of the ethical dilemmas with which the Bill is intended to deal. It is 30 years since I first joined a national newspaper as a reporter. I—and many of my erstwhile colleagues—believe that, in that period, the ethical standards of the press have deteriorated alarmingly. Journalists are often portrayed as having no interest in the ethical standards of the press. It is true that, individually, they have an interest
      556
      in winkling out the facts, however damaging they may be to the person concerned, but journalists collectively have an important interest in ensuring that their professional standards are maintained and that people's privacy, especially the privacy of ordinary people, is not invaded for purely commercial interests.
      Many of my former journalist colleagues will welcome the clarity of the new clause and the fact that it establishes the law of privacy as coequal with the freedom of the press. It is many years since the former Secretary of State for National Heritage said that they were nearly calling time at the last chance saloon. When he said that in 1991, he presumably meant that it was about 10.50 pm. Successive Secretaries of State have put back that deadline time and again, even though the problems of privacy and freedom of the press have deteriorated. By my reckoning, it is now about half-past five in the morning. I am sure that the Bill will be the moment at which we say, "Time gentlemen, please" in the last chance saloon.
      Mr. Grieve: I find myself facing this debate with welcome surprise. At the start of the Bill's progress through Parliament, it seemed to me that this would be the great dust up. On Second Reading, there were expressions of great concern about the freedom of the press, the way in which the convention would impinge on it and the dreadful consequences that might flow for the historic liberties of the fourth estate that were thereby threatened. It seemed to exercise the minds of quite a few of my colleagues. In the light of the Government's response, I thought that I would have to comment on the fact that the Government were giving way to pressure from the fourth estate—of a kind other than the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—and were tinkering with the European convention on human rights by incorporating it in an undesirable fashion.
      I am the first to be delighted that, in new clause 13, the Government have done nothing of the kind. Indeed, it seems that, for some magical reason, that tremendous canard—if I may use the phrase—has finally been dispelled. The convention—with or without new clause 13, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) so perspicaciously identified—was never going to pose that extraordinary danger.
      None the less, I welcome new clause 13, if only because it has succeeded in placating those who have made some of the more extreme comments about the way in which the convention will operate. The new clause is also wholly compatible with current practice, as my hon. and learned Friend correctly said. I do not think that it will tinker around with well-established principles—at least, I hope it will not.
      The cosiness may be becoming too great, but I believe that, when the convention is incorporated—with the new clause to interpret it—it will provide a motor force for the gradual development of a law on privacy. I greatly welcome that, for precisely the reasons that have been cogently articulated by the hon. Member for Battersea and, in a very interesting speech, by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). Privacy rights need to be protected in this country, and we need to be able to strike a balance. That balance must preserve the freedom of the press to expose hypocrisy and criminal activity, but it must ensure that photographs of young children whose mother was sent to prison by the

      557
      grandmother's denunciation are not put on the front page. Those are precisely the excesses of press activity which a civilised society should abhor.
      I have never believed that we need a privacy law, as I have always believed that, once the convention is incorporated, such a law will develop gradually and of its own accord—it will assume a civilised, measured and proper form. If it does not, doubtless Parliament will keep it under review—we may be able to help it on its way as and when necessary. I hope that such legislation will not be necessary, and that incorporation will focus minds on the balance between articles 8 and 10, which need to be reconciled if we are to remain a civilised society that respects the rights of individuals not to have their privacy wantonly trampled on.
      I do not intend to take up much of the Committee's time. As I said, I had rather expected that I should have to remind the Government not to tinker around with the convention, but I am delighted that I do not have to. The Home Secretary is to be commended on new clause 13, which is well crafted, well reasoned and seems to meet the objections that were previously being raised. We shall keep the matter under review—it will be a subject of abiding interest to me and, I dare say, to a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. As time goes by, we shall have to see whether it is achieving the desirable aim that I believe it can achieve.
      Mr. Ross Cranston: I want to make a few remarks about the way in which the new clause reconciles the rights to freedom of speech and to the protection of private and family life. Both rights are important. Freedom of speech, in a way, encapsulates our vision of democracy; it is essential to our democratic procedures. If we do not have freedom of speech, we cannot operate our democratic mechanisms. The protection of private life involves a range of concerns—our rights, for example, to individual autonomy, to reputation, to the protection of private information and to an individual name. Those are important rights, but, like all rights, they have to be qualified both when considered alone and, in some cases—as we are considering today—when they conflict.
      New clause 13 represents a sensible way in which those different rights may be reconciled. It suggests that they can be balanced in a number of ways—various criteria are identified. That is especially helpful. English courts develop the law pragmatically and incrementally, but it is sometimes useful that they should have some guidance. New clause 13 provides guidance on reconciling those rights.
      Our courts can gain some insight into how rights may be balanced by considering the experience of other countries. Even in the United States, the right to freedom of speech is qualified, although, under the first amendment, a much more absolutist view is taken of the right. Some Supreme Court judges, such as Justice Black, have indeed taken an much more absolutist view of freedom of speech than is taken by the European Court of Human Rights, but they, too, have recognised that, in some cases, the right has to be qualified.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has placed a brief summary of the European case law in the Library. The point that I think he was making with the case
      558
      extracts is that, in most cases, the European Court of Human Rights has given primacy to the right to free speech. The extracts suggest, on the whole, that the article 10 right will trump other rights. We know that from the case law that has arisen from this country. The Sunday Times thalidomide case some 25 ago years showed that the contempt proceedings against the newspaper could not be upheld under article 10. In the "Spycatcher" case, which has been mentioned, the court made the important point that dangers were inherent in the prior restraint of freedom of speech. More recently, in the Goodwin case, the court made an important point about the protection of journalistic sources.
      Mr. Garnier: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but he will not want the Committee to conclude from his remarks that articles 8 and 10 do not allow for prior restraint. Paragraph 2 of article 10 and paragraph 2 of article 8 show that there are exceptions. Indeed, one of the problems of the convention is that it is as much a list of exceptions as it is of rights. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not move from this point without addressing his mind to the exceptions—including the allowances to prior restraint—that are contained in the articles.
      Mr. Cranston: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right—the rights are qualified. Indeed, as I said at the outset, rights are always qualified. We are considering how the new clause can deal with a conflict between two rights. I shall come back to some of his remarks, as I do not agree that the new clause achieves nothing.
      We tend to ignore the jurisprudence of the German courts, but they have, for many years, balanced the right to free speech with the right to privacy.
      My friend and former colleague Professor Markesinis has published some lengthy discussions of the German case law. He points out that the German courts have developed sophisticated methods of balancing the two rights. For example, they distinguish between speech that informs, and speech that is mere gossip. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) alluded to that distinction when he castigated some of his former colleagues.
      6 pm
      The German courts also distinguish between speech motivated by greed, and speech that is in the public interest. I see that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has returned to the Chamber. I am not sure that the story he told does him any discredit; I think that all professionals should act with some concept of the public interest in mind, and I consider that the right hon. Gentleman acted in the right way all those years ago. We must balance those rights, and new clause 13 sets out a number of criteria.
      I accept what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said about ex parte and interim relief. I am not sure that new clause 13 adds a great deal to the existing law in that respect, but I think that it is valuable in that it refers to the public interest and to privacy codes. It is possible that the courts would have developed a deferential attitude to the privacy codes that exist. In judicial review, for example, the Datafin case

      559
      showed that our courts will defer to self-regulatory codes. In that instance, the takeover code was involved. The court said that the City operated the takeover code in a reasonably satisfactory way, that the panel was closer to the market than the court was and that it should, therefore, defer to its operation. In time, our courts may develop a case law that respects the decisions of self-regulatory bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission, but I am not certain that we can say at this point that they will automatically adopt such an approach.
      It is also helpful that new clause 13 invokes the concept of the public interest. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked what the term actually meant, and he was right to do so, because it is a difficult concept—the concept of the unruly horse to which Lord Diplock referred all those years ago. Again, German case law is useful. In one of his papers, Professor Markesinis sets out a range of considerations taken into account by the German courts—in particular, the German constitutional court—in the definition of the public interest.
      The German courts have considered, for instance, the motives of the publisher, whether the speaker will benefit financially, the extent to which the information has been disseminated, the breadth of the restriction that the plaintiff wishes to impose on the defendant's speech rights and the methods used. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea referred to the legality of such methods as telephoto lenses.
      Although I consider new clause 13 valuable in that respect, I must add that we are only at the beginning of our journey. Over the years, in a range of decisions, the courts will have to reconcile those two rights. Nevertheless, the new clause constitutes a valuable contribution to the start of the journey.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We have had a good debate, in which all hon. Members have welcomed new clause 13.
      The new clause seeks to do what—as I think is generally recognised—could have been a difficult, even precarious job: the job of ensuring that the balance between articles 8 and 10 is right. I am pleased that Lord Wakeham, on behalf of the Press Complaints Commission, said today:
      "The amendment being discussed in the Committee of the House today safeguards the freedom of the press and self-regulation. I warmly welcome it—as I know does the newspaper industry—and am grateful for the skilful way the Government has dealt with the potential problems."
      I am also delighted by the welcome given to the new clause by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), in a very good speech. I particularly enjoyed his account of his failure to write a story which he thought that he should not write, for good reasons, finding later that there might be good reasons for him to have done so. That is a lesson for all journalists who must make such judgments.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. He pointed out that the press and broadcasting agencies are all involved in the way in which the convention will operate, and that, in the operation of the new clause, separate codes may be taken into consideration. I confirm that separate codes will operate. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, there are minor—even marginal—
      560
      differences between them. I suspect that those differences will not make much odds in terms of court judgments, but the right hon. Gentleman was right to point them out.
      The right hon. Gentleman welcomed the tightening of the law on interim judgments, which we consider an important safeguard for the press. He asked whether the Press Complaints Commission should develop prior restraint powers. That is not part of our plans, which I hope reassures him. He said that the task of newspapers was to reveal and to expose. We agree that it is a basic safeguard of an active and vital democracy to reveal and expose when at least some public interest is involved. I am sure that that is the right hon. Gentleman's view.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) rightly said that we should consider not so much whether the rich, famous and powerful would benefit from the new clause, but whether there would be some protection for the ordinary individual who might feel that his private life was being infringed. I think that all hon. Members want to get the balance right between the freedom of the press—the importance of which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield—and the rights of the "small man", as he was described by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. We must get the balance right between articles 8 and 10. The courts will no doubt weigh the vulnerability of ordinary citizens and of the rich and famous in the appropriate way. Article 8 is available to everyone, including the small man.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush asked about various cases. He asked whether the helicopter winchman would be able to claim under the convention and, if so, in which court. The venue depends on the nature of the case and of the claim, so I cannot give him guidance on that, but there would be various ways of proceeding.
      Mr. Soley: This is a key question of access to the law. Given that the man was grieving at the time and trying to prevent the intrusion that was taking place, it seems to me that there should be an ability to go to the local court—perhaps the magistrates court—to seek protection. If the human rights convention is now part of our domestic law, is an appeal available on that basis?
      Mr. O'Brien: When there is a case that can be brought before a court, the convention can be brought in. Which court that will be will depend on the nature of the case. I cannot give an absolute assurance that the man to whom my hon. Friend referred will be able to pursue the matter in a county court. It would be wrong to give individual advice from the Dispatch Box, and the man will have to rely on his own lawyer. When they become a matter of dispute and concern, issues relating to the convention can be raised in ordinary cases. People have access to rights that previously had to be enforced in Strasbourg. I hope that my remarks have afforded at least some reassurance.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush also asked about a child. There are various options: the child could be made a ward of court, a guardian ad litem could bring a case, or the official solicitor could look after the child's interests. In some cases, the courts decide that the invasion of privacy outweighs the right to freedom of expression. The new clause does not prevent that.

      561
      An important point that has, to some extent, been overlooked is that newspapers will not be public authorities and could not be proceeded against directly under the Bill, but an article 8 point could be raised in proceedings for harassment or a libel action, for example.
      Concerning the example of the expenditure at the tuck shop of an inmate of a special hospital, there are arguments either way about whether publication should be considered to be in the public interest, and the courts would have to decide the case on its merits. The new clause simply requires them to have regard to whether publication would be in the public interest.
      The hon. and learned Member for Harborough made the important point that, when Front Benchers agree, it is the responsibility of Back Benchers to put the testing arguments to the Government. He asked us to remember the distinction between the public interest and what is interesting to the public. I hope that, to some extent, we have caught that important distinction in subsection (4)(a)(ii) of the new clause.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the new clause went further than the current law. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was able to reassure him to some extent. We are seeking to put in place some new safeguards to provide help and clarity in the law. When we introduce something as important as the convention, it is important to ensure that the courts understand how we intend it to be interpreted. The provisions in subsections (4) and, especially, (2) offer safeguards. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that those safeguards are acknowledged to some extent in the practice of the courts, but now they will be acknowledged in statute, and the added clarity in the law will give them substance.
      6.15 pm
      The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the tribunal—by which, I presume, he means the divisional court judge or whoever is considering the application—would have to reach a conclusion at an early stage about whether the case was likely to succeed. That would be the case, but only to the extent that the judge would be considering issuing an injunction. If he decided, for whatever reason, that an injunction was inappropriate, he would not have to consider the substance of the case and its chances of success at that stage.
      Mr. Garnier: I am not entirely sure that the Minister addressed my point. If the judge—it is a Queen's Bench judge in chambers, as often as not, rather than a divisional court—is not minded to grant an injunction on the application of a plaintiff who is seeking to protect confidential information, that more or less becomes the main question, because once the information is in the public domain, there is nothing to be done other than the award of damages—and we are talking about non-pecuniary loss, not about anything of great financial value.
      Mr. James Clappison: The damage is done and the cat is out of the bag.
      Mr. Garnier: Indeed, or as I said in Lord Donaldson's language, the ice, once in the full glare of the sun, has melted.
      562
      We need to think more carefully about requiring a judge considering an application for an injunction to reach a judgment on the merits of a trial that could have long-term implications, when we all know that a trial involves the consideration of far more detailed evidence than is available to a judge at that stage.
      Mr. O'Brien: That is right, but judges have to make such decisions, and will have to bear in mind the consequences and consider whether it is right to grant the injunction. They may decide that it is not, but feel subsequently that damages are a better way in which to deal with the case. The judge must consider all the circumstances and find the right balance between articles 8 and 10, taking into account the factors that we have suggested in the new clause and considering the hon. and learned Gentleman's valid point that information that has a value because of its confidentiality cannot regain that value once the confidentiality is lost. The judge will have to bear in mind both that point and the consequences that it might have for what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough called the small man. Those are issues for the judges to wrestle with. I am not sure that we can go much further than providing the judges with the clarity and guidance that we are giving. There will perhaps be more clarity and guidance for the judges when the convention is in place.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman said that subsection (3) made no difference. We suggest, however, that the law on granting injunctions is flexible in privacy cases, and we are tightening it to ensure that the applicant will in all cases need to establish a stronger case.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) made several points about defects in self-regulation. The Government have no plans to end self-regulation. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the Calcutt report and the comments of the former Member of Parliament for Putney, David Mellor, who warned the press that time was running out at the last chance saloon. In many ways, Mr. Mellor's comment had an effect, and the Press Complaints Commission is trying robustly to ensure freedom of the press while trying to ensure that privacy is respected. The Bill helps the PCC to balance article 10 and article 8. Our new clause will add to press safeguards, giving the PCC better guidance on how to achieve that balance.
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised several important points. Unfortunately, his most important point came during his intervention on the Home Secretary about the public interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) also raised that point in his helpful speech. I am perhaps tempting further interventions by going into the issue of what the public interest is, but the basic question is whether the public should have particular information. For example, information might have an effect on proper political discourse, or a matter of public policy. It might also affect individual behaviour. For example, information about BSE might have affected decisions on whether to eat beef. Those are areas in which there is a proper public interest in the press revealing information. The judge would have to ask the same question put by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough: is a matter only of interest to the public, or is it a matter of public interest? There should be some good reason why the public should know.

      563
      It is arguable whether there should be a good reason for the public not to know something. That takes us into realms of philosophy and jurisprudence, and I do not want to go too far into them. However, judges will debate that matter among themselves as they reach their decisions.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North said that we were at the beginning of a journey. We have tried to safeguard the interests of the individual and the interests of press freedom and strong democracy. Much work and thought has gone into that, and I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and others who have praised my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Lord Williams of Mostyn for their hard work on getting the Bill right. We worked closely with the PCC, which has been enormously helpful. Getting the Bill right was important to our democracy, and I am delighted that our debates have indicated that we have done so.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 10

      GUARANTEE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION
      '—(1) If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act concerns an issue of discrimination, it must have particular regard to the guarantee in Article 14 of the Convention that the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground.
      (2)In this section, "court" includes a tribunal.'. — [Mr.Maclennan.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Bill does not seek to introduce new human rights into our domestic law. It seeks merely to bring home the rights guaranteed by the European convention. New clause 10 is closely modelled on new clause 13, and on the earlier new clause tabled by the Government at the behest of the Churches, which were concerned about possible interpretations of convention rights. It is intended to help to guide our courts in their interpretation of article 14. It may be asked whether that is necessary, given considerable jurisprudence over the years on article 14, but it has not been conclusively determined whether that article should be interpreted as setting out rights that are exhaustively covered by the phrase "such as", or whether that phrase is merely a preliminary—I submit that that was what was intended—to an illustration of the rights protected by the convention.
      The point is limited in some respects. By passing my new clause, the Committee would not widen the ambit of protection to categories of people who are not specifically mentioned in article 14 of the convention for such matters as, for example, employment, which is not covered. Article 14 is, in a sense, a parasitic prohibition against discrimination, in that it derives from other protected fundamental rights and freedoms. A number of people are concerned that it would be possible to interpret the article restrictively and to treat categories of persons as exhaustive.
      That would be undesirable, and it would be out of line with much jurisprudence. It would also be out of line with how courts in Ireland have interpreted comparable
      564
      provisions in the Irish constitution, in which grounds of discrimination are enumerated. It would be out of line with the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. In the Egan case in 1992, Canada's superior courts decided that such rights should be interpreted as not exclusively determined by lists of rights.
      The areas of potential discrimination about which some anxiety might exist include disability, age and sexual orientation. As to the policy of the Government and western European countries generally, it is entirely clear that members of the European Union at least are determined that we should take action to combat discrimination based on disability, age and sexual orientation. It is so set out in article 6A of the Amsterdam treaty, to which this Government are party. I hope that my proposal is entirely in line with the Government's thinking about how best to approach the implementation of that treaty obligation. The new clause seems a straightforward way to put beyond doubt the convention's intention to ensure that the protections of our citizens—their fundamental rights and freedoms—are not limited by reference to some status other than those mentioned in article 14.
      6.30 pm
      The matter has come before the European Court of Human Rights, but not conclusively. For example, the Dudgeon case dealt with sexual orientation and the law in Northern Ireland. The matter was resolved by reference not to the status of the individual, but to the article 8 rights on respect for private and family life. Perhaps the matter has been taken rather further in the Sutherland case more recently, in which it could be argued that the court leant more clearly towards regarding homosexuality as another status protected against discrimination.
      The new clause is entirely in line with the policy of our Government and our international treaty obligations. Its purpose is to spell out the matter beyond doubt.
      Mr. Clappison: I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) putting forward his arguments for the new clause. I pay tribute to him for his characteristic care and courtesy in advancing his arguments.
      I am somewhat enlightened now about the new clause, but, when I first considered it, it sprang to mind that it expressed a perfectly worthy sentiment, which might have unintended consequences in practice. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure many others, if not all hon. Members, would do, that individuals have access to rights free from discrimination. I know that the right hon. Gentleman did not serve on the Committee on the Crime and Disorder Bill, where we moved similar amendments to protect individuals from discrimination under some of its new provisions. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will remember that. I cannot remember whether he responded at the time, but there was common ground in the Committee on that issue, and the Government were keen to reassure us.
      I have some doubts about how the new clause would work in practice. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to deal with the problem of interpretation. When I read article 14 in conjunction with the right

      565
      hon. Gentleman's arguments, I thought that the wording of the article was clear and did not need further elaboration. It is clearly set out that
      "the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination".
      The right hon. Gentleman gave examples of people who might be discriminated against and, clearly, he has gone into far more detailed legal research than I have had the opportunity to do. The wording of the article at face value and first glance suggests that it is not intended to be an exhaustive list. The characteristics that might give rise to discrimination, such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, and national or social origin, are set out in the article as examples of the sort of characteristics that should not be discriminated against or lead to a loss of enjoyment of rights under the convention. If I may have my penn'orth on the interpretation of the article, I would think that disability, age and sexual orientation should not give rise to discrimination, but sit alongside the other matters spelt out in the article. They fall broadly into the same category and certainly should not give rise to somebody losing any enjoyment of their rights.
      I am not sure whether that agreement with the right hon. Gentleman leads me to accept the need for the new clause to be incorporated in the Bill. He described the right in article 14 as a parasitic right. I was not going to describe the new clause in that way, but it is his description. He is correct that the right set out in article 14 is different in its nature from many of the other rights contained in the convention that are free-standing rights—the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, to a fair trial and to family life. They are all rights in themselves. Article 14 deals with the access to those rights across the board, but is not a free-standing right in itself.
      Mr. Maclennan indicated assent.
      Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for nodding.
      The right hon. Gentleman's argument continued that new clause 10 was similar in nature to new clause 13, which we have just debated, and new clause 9, which we debated on an earlier occasion, which invite the courts to pay particular regard to the right to freedom of religion, thought and conscience in the case of new clause 9 and the right to freedom of expression in the case of new clause 13.
      I would submit that there is a difference because new clause 10 does not relate to a free-standing right. For that reason, the two new clauses are perfectly workable and should not give rise to problems for the courts. However, I wonder whether this new clause might give rise to problems for the courts, because it is not a free-standing right, but a right of enjoyment that applies across the board.
      As I have already said, the words of article 14 are clear enough in themselves. I wonder how a court would try to apply new clause 10. Indeed, I wonder about the type of case that might arise in practice. So, although I am perfectly happy with the sentiments behind the new clause, I should be happier if the right hon. Gentleman could give us more practical examples of how it might operate in practice.
      566
      I am concerned that new clause 10 would make it difficult for the courts to give effect to the convention. As I have said, the courts are already enjoined to give people access without discrimination to the rights under article 14, but how would the new clause work in practice and how would the courts approach it if, in the enjoyment of any right, the issue of discrimination arose? Would not the matter be weighted in favour of the applicant and would it not be difficult for the courts to give effect to such a measure?
      The right hon. Gentleman has clearly done some research into the cases. He described the Dudgeon case from Northern Ireland, which he said was resolved by reference to rights rather than the status of the individual. It is always slightly dangerous to venture an opinion on a case without knowing all the facts, but, on the right hon. Gentleman's brief description of it, I was rather inclined to agree with the judgment of the court. The court got it right by resolving that by reference to rights rather than the status of the individual. I suspect that new clause 10 may not be needed and that it might have some unintended consequences. Moreover, it would be difficult for the courts to give effect to it in practice.
      The Minister appears eager to respond, and I am interested in hearing what he has to say. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) wisely advised us against tinkering with the Bill. New clause 10 may, although with the best of intentions, be a piece of such tinkering, which we might come to regret. I would not go as far as the Minister did in replying to the previous debate, when he described this as a splendid piece of legislation without any blot or blemish and a tribute to the draftsmanship of the Lord Chancellor—the Lord Chancellor is certainly proud of the Bill as a piece of work—but if we were to accept the new clause, we would be at risk of tinkering. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response because I suspect that he will tell us that, although worthy, the new clause is not needed.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is right, but the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has raised a series of important points, and I hope that I shall be able to deal with some of them.
      New clause 10 requires a court or tribunal, when determining any question arising under the Human Rights Act that concerns an issue of discrimination, to have particular regard to article 14—that the rights and freedoms set forth in the convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground.
      I am ready to join the right hon. Gentleman in emphasising the importance of article 14 and the position that it occupies in the convention, and to express the Government's hope and confidence that it will be given full weight in our courts in the same way as the other articles in the convention. I acknowledge, too, that the words "on any ground" are important. Article 14 contains a list of grounds on which discrimination in securing other convention rights is prohibited, but it is important not to overlook the crucial words "or other status" which appear at the end. The list is not an exhaustive one, and should not be treated as such.
      I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Hertsmere that we may be at risk of tinkering with the Bill in a way that might have some unintended consequences. I cannot

      567
      advise the Committee to accept the new clause. My reason, in a nutshell, is that the new clause is either empty of substance because it merely states the obvious, or it represents an attempt to gloss the convention rights, however slightly, in a way that we have so far avoided doing in our proceedings. We have been careful to avoid doing so, particularly in the clauses that have been added to the Bill in recent months.
      There is no disguising the fact that article 14 and the way in which it has been applied are not regarded as fully satisfactory by a number of commentators who have a particular interest in, for example, race equality issues. Its most obvious limitation in their eyes is that it is not a free-standing anti-discrimination provision, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, is parasitic. I do not like that phrase, but essentially it is tied to the other convention rights.
      It is no secret that discussions are under way in Strasbourg on the possibility of a new protocol to the convention to introduce a free-standing anti-discrimination provision. That is the right way of dealing with that question—if, indeed, it needs to be dealt with.
      Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing with my description of the provision as a parasitic right which would affect other free-standing rights. Does he share my concern that, given that it would affect all the other free-standing rights in the convention, it would create an incentive for individuals who are seeking to take advantage of their alleged entitlement to those rights to plead discrimination, and that we would see a welter of cases involving free-standing rights, in which individuals were pleading discrimination, thus making it difficult for courts to give effect to the convention?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. O'Brien: We shall have to consider that situation in due course. No doubt those who are considering whether there should be a new free-standing provision will have to consider its effect not only on domestic problems in our courts but on the Strasbourg court and the sorts of cases that are brought before it. Clearly, such issues will need to be discussed and probably the best way is to ensure that the UK delegation, which is playing an active in the Strasbourg deliberations on any protocol, bears in mind the impact that it would have on our courts and on the Strasbourg court in deciding whether a free-standing anti-discrimination provision should be forthcoming. Therefore, we should not prejudge the situation that may develop; in a sense, that is what the new clause does.
      Mr. Maclennan: I should be grateful if the debate did not go off at a tangent. The new clause is not intended to pre-empt the discussion about the free-standing rights against discrimination. I am aware of those discussions, and I hope that the Government will be supportive of establishing a free-standing anti-discrimination provision. The new clause is designed simply to ensure that the fundamental rights and freedoms that the convention seeks to safeguard are available not just to the limited number of categories of people who are mentioned in article 14, but to those of other status. I am delighted to hear the Minister say that he regards it as common sense
      568
      that the categories are not closed by these illustrative examples. I agree. I am simply seeking to put the matter beyond argument and doubt.
      Mr. O'Brien: But the new clause essentially puts a gloss on the convention and, throughout the Bill, we have tried not to do that. We have tried to grant access rather than create a new gloss on those convention rights. Even in new clause 13, we were careful about that. Our concern is that, with the best of intentions, new clause 10 would not continue that level of care.
      I understand the view that may be expressed that, despite, for example, the Sutherland case, the European Court of Human Rights has been somewhat conservative in its judgments concerning article 14, and perhaps too ready to find in favour of states on the ground that there was objective justification for some action which, on its face, might be considered discriminatory. However, whether or not that is so, it is not something we can influence by an amendment to the Bill. Nor do the Government wish to suggest that, in general, our courts should take a different view on the issue from that taken by the European Court.
      The Bill is based firmly on the proposition that it is about access to the convention rights, not their substance, and that our courts must take into account the Strasbourg jurisprudence. We cannot honourably pick and choose which rights should be subject to those propositions and which should be open to more generous treatment from the point of view of applicants to our courts.
      New clause 10 is an attempt to go some way down that road. It might be seen as an attempt to gloss the convention, encouraging our courts to interpret article 14 more widely than can be justified by reference to Strasbourg jurisprudence. If it does not do that, I fail to see what it does do.
      It has been pointed out that, in many ways, new clause 10 merely tries to do for various minorities what other new clauses that the Committee has accepted do for the Churches and the press. I do not think that the parallel is appropriate. Our provision on the Churches emphasises to the UK courts how the Strasbourg institutions have consistently interpreted article 9 rights. It directs the courts' attention to Strasbourg case law, which is to the effect that a Church body or other association with religious objects is capable of possessing and exercising rights contained in article 9 in its capacity as a representative of its members.
      Similarly, the provision on freedom of the press is grounded firmly on Strasbourg case law, which encourages the particular importance of the article 10 right to freedom of expression. Moreover, those changes, as well as being wholly in accord with the principles of the Bill and the convention, address concerns of the Churches and the media that the Bill might worsen their position. That consideration does not apply to article 14.
      Our reservations about new clause 10 do not imply any lessening of our commitment to combat discrimination. I do not think that anyone has suggested that. We recognise the importance of judges being able to deal with minority groups in a way in which those groups can have confidence. The Judicial Studies Board carries out extensive training involving members of ethnic minorities, for example, in talking to judges to ensure that

      569
      discrimination does not occur. We think that that is a better way forward. We do not think that adding glosses to the convention at this stage is appropriate or desirable.
      I agree with many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, and I will not repeat them. However, the new clause would do something that we have been trying to avoid. It would be a change in the way that we have handled the Bill which should not be acceptable to the Committee. I accordingly invite the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to withdraw his new clause, in the interests of a Bill which is about granting access to the rights that people should have access to in our courts—but for which, at present, they have to go Strasbourg—rather than about changing the substance of those rights.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Minister's reply was rather disappointing, on more than one count. First, he sought to distinguish between the Government's approach in respect of the clauses that dealt with the Churches and the press. Those undoubtedly put a gloss on convention rights and how they were to be enforced in this country, to secure a greater clarity where some powerful interests in the land felt that their interests were at risk.
      The Churches had loud voices. The people whom I am seeking to protect in new clause 10, which is modelled on the Government's new clause, do not have such loud voices. They are the disabled, the aged and minorities with differences of sexual orientation. They are not powerful interests. Their interests need the clarity that the Government have been eager to bring in for the Churches and the press.
      Secondly, the argument is that this is not an attempt to widen the protections for these groups in any way other than already provided for by the European convention. As I made plain in my initial remarks, it is not to provide a new protection against discrimination at work because that is not covered by the convention. It is designed simply to ensure that access to the protections that the Government claim are in their mind is not debarred because the status of those groups is not specifically mentioned in article 14.
      I was glad that the Minister said that it was common sense that the categories were not closed. If we could rely entirely on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights on this matter, I should be happy to accept his invitation to let it go at that. However, in all the cases that have been considered, the matter has not been concluded. Our courts are not assisted by being pointed to the European courts. They will have to make up their own minds if the matter arises.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman makes my point. He seeks to change the substance of the convention rather than merely clarify things. He is dissatisfied with the way in which the courts proceed and, therefore, seeks to change the substance. He is going beyond anything that we have agreed to do in the Bill so far.
      Mr. Maclennan: That is a misinterpretation of what I said. What I am saying is that the courts in Strasbourg have not found it necessary to reach a conclusion on these
      570
      matters. In several cases, they have decided the issue under another article, although the article 14 rights have been raised. The matter has not been concluded.
      The Government claim to be anxious—I do not dispute it—to protect these categories of people against discrimination. As they have subscribed to the Amsterdam treaty provisions, which explicitly mention the appropriateness of European Union member countries offering the protection of our law to those who are disabled or elderly or who might be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation, it is perverse not to take this opportunity to put the matter beyond doubt. For that reason, I shall seek to divide the Committee.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes 234.

      Division No. 326]

      [6.57 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Livsey, Richard

      Ballard, Jackie

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burnett, John

      Rendel, David

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Chidgey, David

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Harvey, Nick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Mr. David Heath.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clwyd, Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Connarty, Michael

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Corbett, Robin

      Ashton, Joe

      Cousins, Jim

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cranston, Ross

      Austin, John

      Crausby, David

      Banks, Tony

      Cummings, John

      Battle, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Betts, Clive

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Boateng, Paul

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Doran, Frank

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dowd, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Drew, David

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burden, Richard

      Ennis, Jeff

      Burgon, Colin

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Flint, Caroline

      Cann, Jamie

      Flynn, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Follett, Barbara

      Cawsey, Ian

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Chaytor, David

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gapes, Mike

      Clapham, Michael

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Goggins, Paul

      571

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Meale, Alan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Merron, Gillian

      Grogan, John

      Milburn, Alan

      Hain, Peter

      Miller, Andrew

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hanson, David

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hill, Keith

      Olner, Bill

      Hinchliffe, David

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hoey, Kate

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pendry, Tom

      Hope, Phil

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Pike, Peter L

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Illsley, Eric

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jamieson, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jenkins, Brian

      Rammell, Bill

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Rapson, Syd

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee w)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Roy, Frank

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Salter, Martin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Sawford, Phil

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Laxton, Bob

      Spellar, John

      Lepper, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Leslie, Christopher

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Linton, Martin

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Lock, David

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Love, Andrew

      McAllion, John

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      McCabe, Steve

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Touhig, Don

      McDonnell, John

      Truswell, Paul

      McFall, John

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Wareing, Robert N

      McNulty, Tony

      White, Brian

      MacShane, Denis

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mallaber, Judy

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      572

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wood, Mike

      Mr. David Clelland and

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 1
      THE ARTICLES
      Amendment made: No. 112, in page 19, line 23, at end insert—
      'PROTOCOL No. 6
        ARTICLE 1
          THE DEATH PENALTY SHALL BE ABOLISHED

            ARTICLE 2
            A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that law.'.—[Mr. McFall.]
            Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
            Schedule 2 agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      JUDICIAL PENSIONS
      Question proposed, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Schedule 3 makes the provision specified in clause 18(6) about judicial pensions in relation to the holder of judicial office in the UK who serves as a judge of the European Court of Human Rights. It places a duty on the relevant Minister—the Lord Chancellor for a judge serving in England and Wales or Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for a Scottish judge—to make an order ensuring that a UK serving judge's pension position will not be prejudiced as a result of his or her appointment to the court.
      Sir Norman Fowler: We may need a slightly longer exposition of the schedule than the one just given by the Minister. I am suspicious about the fact that the last schedule to a Bill on human rights deals with judicial pensions. I suppose that we are dealing with the human rights of judges, as opposed to those of everybody else. I should like to know a little more about the position on judicial pensions. What are the Government trying to do in the schedule? What is the demand for the measure? Will the Minister say a few words about the cost that is involved?
      I should like to ask four straightforward and specific questions. I know that there is not much time left, but I am sure that there is enough time for the Minister to reply to my questions and I am equally sure that he knows the answers. First, will he tell us a little about the schemes? Are they properly funded by employer's and/or employees' contributions, or are they pay-as-you-go? How much is the cost to the taxpayer of the employer's contributions?

      573
      Secondly, how long does the scheme take to mature? The standard final-salary pension scheme is one that matures after 40 years of work, but we assume that not many judges qualify under that criterion. Will the Minister tell us what the qualification is and how many years to maturity a full pension requires? In the schedule, we are protecting the rights under the scheme of a judge who transfers from one place to another, but how long does a judge have to serve to obtain the full pension?
      Thirdly, what contributions do the judges have to make and what contributions does the taxpayer have to make?
      Fourthly, is the scheme permissive? In other words, is it permissive in the sense of allowing a judge to transfer to a personal pension if that is his wish; or is he tied in to the final-salary scheme as set out at the end of the schedule? If he is able to transfer to a personal pension, will the Government as the employer make the same contribution as would be made to the final-salary scheme?
      Those are straightforward, simple questions, to which I am sure that the Minister knows the answers. I should be grateful for any answers, because public money is involved and the taxpayer is involved through employer contributions. The Committee will want to hear a little more explanation than the 30 seconds-worth that the Minister gave at the beginning, given the importance of the matter, not only to judges but to taxpayers generally.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising his questions. Given the enthusiasm with which he put them. I thought that he was concerned that we might have a judicial pensions mis-selling scandal on our hands, but I can assure him that we have nothing like that. The schedule makes statutory provision so that if a judge from the UK courts goes to Strasbourg, his or her pension will be protected. That is all we are doing.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of detailed questions about how the judges' pension scheme operates. I shall have a word with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, and give him all the details. However, we are talking about a relatively small sum of money, used to fund over the next 20 or 30 years the pensions of a couple of judges—unless the right hon. Gentleman expects us to appoint many judges to the Strasbourg court. In the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", he will see set out clearly:
      "The cost will depend on both the number of years served at the Court and the salary of the relevant UK judicial office at the point of retirement."
      All that we are doing is ensuring the same sort of pension provision that a judge would get if he served in the UK.
      It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Orders [1 June and 17 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Schedule 3 agreed to.
      THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    New schedule 3
      REMEDIAL ORDERS

        Orders
        1.—(1) A remedial order may—

        (a) contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the person making it considers appropriate;

        (b) be made so as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which it is made;

        (c) make provision for the delegation of specific functions;

        (d) make different provision for different cases.

        (2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(a)includes—

        (a) power to amend or repeal primary legislation (including primary legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision); and

        (b) power to amend or revoke subordinate legislation (including subordinate legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision).

        (3) No person is to be guilty of an offence solely as a result of the retrospective effect of a remedial order.

        Procedure
        2. No remedial order may be made unless—

        (a) a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament made after the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid; or

        (b) it is declared in the order that it appears to the person making it that, because of the urgency of the matter, it is necessary to make the order without a draft being so approved.

        Orders laid in draft
        3.—(1) No draft may be laid under paragraph 2(a)unless—

        (a) the person proposing to make the order has laid before Parliament a document which contains a draft of the proposed order and the required information; and

        (b) the period of 60 days, beginning with the day on which the document required by this subsection was laid, has ended.

        (2) If representations have been made during that period, the draft laid under paragraph 2(a) must be accompanied by a statement containing—

        (a) a summary of the representations; and

        (b) if, as a result of the representations, the proposed order has been changed, details of the changes.

        Urgent cases
        4.—(1) If a remedial order ("the original order") is made without being approved in draft, the person making it must lay it before Parliament, accompanied by the required information, after it is made.
        (2) If representations have been made during the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the original order was made, the person making it must (after the end of that period) lay before Parliament a statement containing—

        (a) a summary of the representations; and

        (b) if, as a result of the representations, he considers it appropriate to make changes to the original order, details of the changes.

        (3) If sub-paragraph (2)(b) applies, the person making the statement must—

        (a) make a further remedial order replacing the original order; and

        (b) lay the replacement order before Parliament.

        575
        (4) If, at the end of the period of 120 days beginning with the day on which the original order was made, a resolution has not been passed by each House approving the original or replacement order, the order ceases to have effect (but without that affecting anything previously done under either order or the power to make a fresh remedial order).

        Definitions
        5. In this Schedule—
        "representations" means representations about a remedial order (or a proposed remedial order) made to the person making (or proposing to make) it and includes any relevant Parliamentary report or resolution; and
        "required information" means—

        (a) an explanation of the incompatibility which the order (or proposed order) seeks to remove, including particulars of the relevant declaration, finding or order; and

        (b) a statement of the reasons for proceeding under section 10 and for making an order in those terms.

        Calculating periods
        6. In calculating any period for the purposes of this section, no account is to be taken of any time during which—

        (a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued; or

        (b) both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Bill reported, with amendments.
        Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow

  Data Protection Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Data Protection Bill [Lords]
    Clause 1

      BASIC INTERPRETIVE PROVISIONS
      7.16 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 3.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 48.
      Mr. Hoon: The purpose of the amendments is to delete clause 1 (5) and (6) and the associated reference to the definition of "transfer" in the index of defined expressions in clause 71.
      Subsections (5) and (6) were originally included in the Bill with the intention that they would help to clarify the somewhat opaque provisions relating to the international movement of personal data in articles 4 and 25 of the directive. In the Bill, we sought to clarify the relationship between those two rules by means of the partial definition of "transfer" in clause 1(5) and the provision in clause 1(6) setting out the application of the geographical scope of provisions in clause 5.
      However, those provisions have not met with uniform approval and, on reflection and after listening carefully to further representations, the Government have concluded that there still remains a measure of difficulty about their purpose. Given that the sole reason for the inclusion of the provisions was to clarify the position, the fact that they do not appear to have that effect means that they are plainly unsatisfactory. We cannot immediately see a useful way in which the necessary clarity can be achieved by further amending these subsections, so we have concluded that the best thing would be simply to delete them.
      Mr. John Greenway: In Committee, I asked why the subsections were there at all. I made the point that I had been minded to table an amendment to delete them, but had decided that it might be seen as a wrecking amendment. We warmly welcome the Minister's decision. For the avoidance of doubt or confusion, it is better to remove clause 1 (5) and (6) altogether. It says much about the complexity of the legislation that all the best brains in the Home Office cannot find a way of putting on the face of the Bill what the two subsections intend. Imperfect though the legislation will be without them, it will be less imperfect than it would be with them.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7

      RIGHT OF ACCESS TO PERSONAL DATA
      Mr. Hoon: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 5, line 22, after 'subject' insert
      'for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 21 to 23.
      No. 11, in page 5, line 48, after 'otherwise', insert
      ', and with the proviso that the identity of individuals providing information used by credit reference agencies in supplying trade references for partnerships and sole traders should also be exempted from disclosure.'.
      No. 12, in schedule 7, page 57, line 48, at end insert—
      '2. In addition, personal data are exempt from section 7 if they consist of the name of the person who has given a reference in confidence for the purpose of assisting a credit reference agency to comment on the creditworthiness of the data subject.'.
      Government amendment No. 55.
      Mr. Hoon: Amendment No. 20 relates to clause 7(1)(d), which gives individuals the right of access to information about the logic involved when decisions about them are based solely on the automated processing of their personal data. The intention is that, consistent with the directive, the provision should apply only to decision making to which clause 12 applies.
      Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 are technical amendments which make more precise the wording of clause 7(2). Amendment No. 55 concerns the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which involves detailed provision relating to the collection of, and access to, personal information. In that sensitive area of treatment affecting the very basics of human life, it is important to ensure that those provisions are not in any way undermined by the Bill. The amendment would ensure that the existing position is maintained.
      Mr. Greenway: Amendment No. 20 addresses an issue that I raised in Committee, and I welcome it. In one sense, it limits the scope of the duty for data controllers with regard to the logic in automated decisions. However, the inclusion of the words in the amendment, especially those referring to an individual's
      "performance at work…his reliability or his conduct",
      are beneficial to the Bill, as they make it clear that such key matters are covered and that automated decision taking will not be permitted concerning them.
      I think that amendments Nos. 21 to 23 are drafting amendments. I have had the opportunity of discussing amendment No. 55, concerning embryos, with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), and I agree that, for the avoidance of doubt, it is probably sensible to remove that passage.
      Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 stand in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and for Poole (Mr. Syms). I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and
      578
      Walton wishes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there has been concern that there should be some exemption from disclosure for the
      "identity of individuals providing information used by credit reference agencies in supplying trade references for partnerships and sole traders".
      I know that the Government have received several representations on that subject, and the Opposition strongly urge Ministers to keep the issue under review should our amendments not commend themselves to the Government. Several commercial organisations are concerned about the matter, and I hope that the Minister will accept that the Bill as drafted leaves some room for doubt. If it is not to be amended, we ought to have some assurance that the matter will be kept under active review and that perhaps, in two or three years' time, a more formal review will be undertaken.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: I apologise to the Minister for missing, as I dashed into the Chamber, what must have been his fairly extensive opening remarks. I apologise for my lack of courtesy in that respect, but I am grateful that my Front-Bench spokesman has already mentioned amendments Nos. 11 and 12. I do not intend to speak for more than a moment about them because we discussed the general area in Committee.
      In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, said that he would consider the subject sympathetically, but the Home Office then redefined the word "sympathetically" to mean that it would consider the subject very cautiously.
      I am concerned that, because of the requirement to reveal sources, sole traders, small partnerships and other very small companies may have difficulty in getting credit at all. I believe that there is a general understanding that the subject should be reviewed within three years, and if the Minister is prepared to give me some comfort in that direction, I would not wish to go much further. I want the Government to keep the matter under close review, because, if things went wrong, there could be serious repercussions for very small companies and single traders.
      Mr. Brian White: I raised this issue a couple of times in Committee, and I know that, since the Minister gave me an assurance at that time, there have been a couple of meetings with the Home Office. I echo the comments that have been made about the need to take the matter seriously and to consider a review.
      If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendments, perhaps before the Bill comes back from the Lords they will think about keeping the matter under review. Although the provision affects only a small number of people, it could be crucial for the small business men concerned. I urge the Minister to give further thought to that aspect of the Bill. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, special provision was made, which was repeated in the Data Protection Act 1984, and it would be useful to review the issue on a continuing basis.
      Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) for his comments. He should note that, although my introductory observations may not have been extensive, they were certainly comprehensive. He should also appreciate the fact that it is possible to consider representations sympathetically without necessarily agreeing with them.

      579
      The Government have indeed received a number of representations on the subject, and we recognise that the industry's concerns are genuinely held. The question at the heart of the matter is whether the fundamental information privacy right—the right to subject access—should be restricted because of concerns about the future availability of credit.
      The arguments presented to the Government so far have not been sufficient to persuade us that the Bill would have the harmful effect on the granting of credit that the industry fears. Therefore, at this stage, the Government cannot accept the amendments. Nevertheless, we recognise that only experience will establish conclusively whether the industry's concerns are justified and, in view of the strength of the concern, I am pleased to give the assurance that the Government will keep the issue under review. We shall reconsider it, in consultation with both the credit industry and small businesses, to see whether the Bill is operating as we intend. I hope that the Opposition will agree that that provides a positive way forward, and will not press their amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 5, line 27, at end insert 'he has received'.
      No. 22, in page 5, line 28, leave out 'has been made'.
      No. 23, in page 5, line 30, leave out 'has been paid'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 11

      RIGHT TO PREVENT PROCESSING FOR PURPOSES OF DIRECT MARKETING
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 8, line 27, leave out 'requirement' and insert 'notice'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 25, 26, 30 to 32, 39 to 45, 47, 49 to 54, 56 to 67 and 69.
      Mr. Howarth: These are essentially minor, technical drafting amendments, and to save the time of the House I do not intend to make a speech about them. However, I should be happy to explain the purpose of any of them, should that be necessary.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 25, in page 8, line 28, leave out 'requirement' and insert 'notice'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 12

      RIGHTS IN RELATION TO AUTOMATED DECISION-TAKING
      Amendment made: No. 26, in page 9, line 27, leave out from second 'decision' to end of line 28 and insert
      'which is not based solely on such processing as is mentioned in subsection (1)'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 14

      RECTIFICATION, BLOCKING, ERASURE AND DESTRUCTION
      Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 10, line 30, leave out 'failure' and insert 'contravention'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
      Mr. Howarth: The first of the amendments simply corrects an inconsistency in the drafting of clause 14(4). Paragraph (a) refers to a contravention of the Act. Paragraph (b) refers to a further failure. It should refer to a "further contravention". The amendment makes the necessary change.
      Clause 14(4) gives the court the power in certain circumstances to order the erasure, destruction or blocking of personal data. Elsewhere, for example in clause 14(1), the court has the power to order the rectification of personal data as well as their blocking, erasure or destruction. There is no good reason why clause 14(4) should not also allow the court to order the rectification of personal data. Indeed, the directive appears to suggest as much. On reflection, we think that confining the rectification remedy to cases of inaccuracy is unduly restrictive. The amendments add the power to rectify to clause 14(4) and make the consequential provision in clause 14(5); and generally align the wording with that used elsewhere.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Greenway: We welcome the amendments. Clause 14 is extremely important in terms of data subject rights. We agree that the court should have the power to rectify information that is inaccurate in respect of data subjects. The three amendments strengthen the Bill in that area, and we are happy to see them incorporated.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 10, line 32, leave out 'erasure, destruction or blocking' and insert
      'rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction'.
      No. 29, in page 10, line 35, leave out 'erasure, destruction or blocking' and insert
      'rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction'—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 17

      PROHIBITION ON PROCESSING WITHOUT REGISTRATION
      Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in page 12, line 6, leave out
      'section 22 applies to the processing'
      and insert
      the processing is assessable processing for the purposes of section 22'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 71 to 82.
      Mr. Howarth: I hope to be able to deal quickly with this group of amendments, which makes what is essentially a series of technical improvements to the

      581
      preliminary assessment provisions in clause 22 and associated provisions. The Bill provides for a limited category of processing, a category where particular worries about data subjects' interests arise, to be assessed by the Data Protection Commissioner for compliance with the principles before it may begin.
      That implements the system described in article 20 of the directive as prior checking. It is essentially a system reliant on such processing being brought to the commissioner's attention some time before it actually begins, so that he or she can consider it and give a view. In itself, it is not a direct control on processing. It does not give the commissioner a power to intervene in advance and prevent the processing before any problem has in fact arisen. It remains the data controller's responsibility to address any concerns raised in his own way.
      The simplest means of operating this system is through the process of notification. That is why all processing in this limited category, even where it is carried out manually or might otherwise have been exempted from the notification regime, has to be notified. Usually, when a data controller has made a notification, he may start processing immediately. In the limited category that we are now considering, after the processing has been notified, the data controller must wait for a fixed period, or until he has heard from the commissioner if that is sooner, before he may start processing. That is so that he or she can carry out an assessment.
      As it stands, the Bill is not as clear as it might be that that is how the system works. The Government are aware that this is a very new feature in our data protection law, being introduced by the Bill as a result of an obligation in the directive. We are also aware that there is an understandable desire among those who might be directly affected for reassurance that the new system will work as clearly and straightforwardly as possible. That is why we have tabled the amendments.
      The amendments essentially do three things. First, they make technical changes so that the key provisions in clause 22 are easier to follow and the sequence of events is set out more plainly. The drafting is simplified and made more narrative.
      Secondly, the amendments make clearer the relationship between the preliminary assessment itself and the notification that precedes it. The entire operation of clause 22 is now explicitly predicated on the receipt of a notification by the commissioner, and a more distinct link is made between the processing as it is described in the notification and as it falls to be assessed.
      Thirdly, both those improvements are carried through to the transitional provisions, where the arrangements are substantially simplified. The provisions on manual and automated data are brought together, and the preliminary assessment system is straightforwardly disapplied in both cases in respect of processing already under way immediately before 24 October 1998.
      As I have said, preliminary assessment of this nature is a novelty in UK data protection law. Its purpose is to address understandable anxieties relating to particular categories of data processing. The Government are concerned that, in this sensitive area, the Bill's provisions should be as easy to follow and to operate as possible.
      582
      These technical amendments make substantial improvements in that direction. I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Greenway: In Committee, I made the point that, as the effect of the clause is to prevent the data controller from commencing processing until the Data Protection Commissioner has given consent for that processing, it is crucial that the commercial organisations involved know where they stand. Although I still have reservations about the period specified, I agree with the Minister that the amendments improve the meaning of the legislation. However, I draw attention to the fact that, even at this late stage, we are being asked to approve a large number of technical amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 20
      DUTY TO NOTIFY CHANGES
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 13, line 45, after 'notification' insert 'under notification regulations made'.—[Mr. McFall.]
    Clause 22

      PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT BY COMMISSIONER
      Amendments made: No. 71, in page 14, line 8, leave out from beginning to "processing" and insert
      'In this section "assessable processing" means'.
      No. 72, in page 14, line 17, leave out from 'whether' to 'and' in line 18 and insert
      'any of the processing to which the notification relates is assessable processing'.
      No. 73, in page 14, line 19, leave out 'proposed' and insert 'assessable'.
      No. 74, in page 14, line 23, leave out
      'processing to which this section applies or would apply'
      and insert 'assessable processing'.
      No. 75, in page 14, line 25, leave out 'proposed'.
      No. 76, in page 14, line 31, leave out from 'No' to 'shall' and insert
      'assessable processing in respect of which a notification has been given to the Commissioner as mentioned in subsection (2)'.
      No. 77, in page 14, line 32, leave out from beginning to 'either' in line 34.
      No. 78, in page 14, line 42, leave out from 'controller' to end of line 44 and insert
      'is guilty of an offence'.—[Mr. McFall.]

    Clause 28

      NATIONAL SECURITY
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 17, line 43, at end insert—
      '(13) The relevant Commissioner may—

      (a) investigate any procedure which relates to—

      (i) the processing of personal data for the purpose of safeguarding national security,

      583

      (ii) the application of an exemption which is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security, or

      (iii) the signing of a certificate under this section,

      (b) make any recommendation which relates to—

      (i) an investigation under paragraph (a) of this subsection, or

      (ii) safeguarding the interests of data subjects, and

      (c) if appropriate—

      (i) raise any matter which relates to an investigation in an annual report, or in any other report to the Prime Minister, or

      (ii) liaise with the Data Protection Commissioner or another relevant Commissioner on matters which relate to an investigation.

      (14) The Data Protection Commissioner may raise with a relevant Commissioner any matter which relates to the processing of personal data for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
      (15) In this section, the "relevant Commissioner" means the Commissioner appointed by virtue of—

      (a) section 4 of the Security Service Act 1989,

      (b) section 8 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994,

      (c) section 91 of the Police Act 1997, or

      (d) section 8 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.'.

      The idea of the amendment is to introduce some element of accountability to the processing of personal data for the purposes of national security. I find it strange, to say the least, that, in certain respects, the Government are offering more privacy protection to members of the mafia and terrorists under investigation by the security services than they are to ordinary law-abiding members of the public—for instance, a data subject who is being positively vetted.
      What is more, I am concerned that the Data Protection Act 1984 is being watered down. That Act placed a duty on the security services, by virtue of section 2(2), to comply with the data protection principles. That duty has been removed by this Bill; an exemption under clause 28(1)(a) removes the obligation to comply with the principles.
      Under section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984, personal data held for safeguarding national security are exempt only from the enforcement regime, registration and rights of data subjects. That means that GCHQ and MI5 and MI6 had a legal duty to apply the data protection principles, even though there was no way for the data protection registrar to test whether the duty was complied with. The 1984 Act therefore places those organisations under a moral duty to comply with the principles, but, under the provisions of clause 28, they are permitted to process personal data insecurely, disclose personal data to unauthorised persons, and even sell it to newspapers by virtue of the exemption from clause 55(4).
      It may seem a flippant question, but I ask the Minister whether the fees raised by the sale of such unlawfully procured personal data will go into the Consolidated Fund, and how much revenue he expects to be raised in the next financial year.
      The Minister might say that MI5, MI6 and GCHQ will not sell unlawfully procured personal data. If that is his argument, why is the exemption in clause 28(1)(c) so wide as to include exemption from clause 55(4), which makes the selling of such personal data an offence? That shows how unnecessarily wide the exemption is with respect to safeguarding national security. Selling misinformation to
      584
      the newspapers about politicians and perhaps even about the Government will be perfectly lawful for the security services.
      In support of my amendment, I draw the attention of the House to some of the differences between warrants and certificates under the Bill. In respect of warrants signed by the Secretary of State—for example, for the interception of communications, or burglary—there is a safeguard, in that such a warrant is signed and validated for six months at a time. By contrast, under the provisions of the Bill, a certificate lasts for ever and is never reviewed.
      I note that for warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, there is an obligation under section 6(3) of that Act to discard irrelevant personal information that has been intercepted. Under the Bill, however, the negation of the third and fifth data protection principles means that irrelevant personal data obtained by means of a certificate can be kept indefinitely.
      The previous Government gave the security services a new role—to assist the police in dealing with serious crime. The obligations of the police in respect of data protection compliance are apparently not to be required of the security services. The Minister should explain why he has come to that conclusion.
      The Government seem to be ignoring the advice of the Data Protection Registrar, who asserts in her document "Our Answers":
      "The extension of the role of the Security Service into areas of traditional policing should not carry with it an extension of the exemptions provided by section 27"—
      the section of the 1984 Act that deals with national security.
      There is a significant risk that improper processing of personal data—for example, data obtained by what may be regarded in other circumstances as unlawful means—relating to a serious crime suspect, would not be subject to any data protection rules at all. Such processing can be undertaken by the security services. That could jeopardise the quality of evidence before a court and the subsequent trust placed in it by a jury. If data protection is so thoroughly disregarded, there is a possibility that some serious criminals will not be convicted.
      My amendment would go some way towards introducing a smidgen of accountability into the way that the security services process data. It would use the expertise of the commissioners established by section 4 of the Security Services Act 1989, section 8 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, section 91 of the Police Act 1997 and section 8 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
      It would be the duty of those commissioners to examine procedures with respect to data protection. They would have powers to investigate any procedure relating to the processing of personal data for the purpose of safeguarding national security; the application of an exemption that is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security; and the signing of a certificate by a Cabinet Minister. The relevant commissioner could make any recommendation relating to that investigation, and make recommendations that were needed to safeguard the interests of data subjects. The proposals in my amendment are no different from the current duties associated with warrants.

      585
      The amendment would permit the commissioner, if appropriate, to raise any matter that relates to an investigation in an annual report, or in any other report, to the Prime Minister, and to communicate with the Data Protection Commissioner or any other relevant commissioner. That is a pretty moderate amendment.
      On 1 June the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) replied to me that the Government
      "have decided not to depart from the existing policy that the Security Service should not register any of the personal data they hold under the Data Protection Act 1984."
      He went on to say:
      "I understand similar considerations also apply to the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ."—[Official Report, 1 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 52]
      However, it is a departure from data protection policy when the security services take on a traditional policing role, and that is against the advice of the Data Protection Registrar. I believe that it is an unwise decision. At the very least, the Minister should explain it to the House.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Richard Allan: We have some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment. My noble Friends in another place also tabled amendments on the issue of the security services exemption, because we are concerned about any blanket exemption, where there is no specific justification for exempting data from the data protection principles. The thrust of the Bill derives from European conferences and conversations in which the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department was deeply involved, and which reflected, to ome extent, the experiences of the residents of the former East Germany, who had good reason to be suspicious of the way in which their security services held data.
      We have been extremely fortunate in this country, in that—apart from the odd rumour that is kicking around—our security services have not generally been held responsible for holding damaging personal data. However, one could argue that the security services hold the most damaging data about individuals. They could leak information about someone, perhaps accusing him of heinous crimes such as being a member of CND or—dare I say it—a socialist. Rumours have circulated only recently that the security services hold information and files on people as prestigious as members of the current Government, and that such information was potentially leakable and potentially damaging.
      We applaud the spirit of the amendment, which seeks to ensure that there is some oversight of security services data and that the buck stops with someone who is accountable under the legislation. We look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Bill would cope if damaging, sensitive personal data were revealed and were traced back to a security services source. If a person sought redress for that, we would be interested to hear what channels would be available to him, and how the issue would be resolved.
      Mr. Greenway: I have been looking forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead
      586
      (Mr. Cohen). He tabled a great number of amendments for the Standing Committee, but sadly, for reasons that I cannot explain, he was not selected to serve on the Committee, so we were denied the opportunity of hearing from him. However, having listened to the hon. Gentleman, and having considered his amendment No. 13, Conservative Members would oppose its inclusion in the Bill.
      We considered this important matter in Committee, and we were at pains to support the Government in requiring that the provision be in the Bill. It is provided for by the directive in article 13 and we believe that, on balance, clause 28 provides an adequate appeal mechanism to the tribunal. While we understand that there are always concerns about such matters, we are not convinced that the House needs to go further in this legislation than the appeal mechanism that is already provided in clause 28.
      Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) tempt me along highways and byways in this debate that it would probably be sensible not to pursue. However, it is important to say at the outset that the Data Protection Act 1984, to which my hon. Friend referred, does not exempt agencies from the data protection principles. Only data users who are required to register are bound by the principles. Section 27 of the 1984 Act provides an exemption from registration where the exemption is needed for national security purposes. That is the exact position.
      Consistent with that, clause 28 provides for personal data to be exempted from the main elements of the Bill when that is necessary in order to safeguard national security. The question of necessity is subject to ministerial certification. There is a right of appeal for any person who is directly affected by that certification. The exemptions provided in clause 28 apply only to the extent needed, and a Minister must satisfy himself that the exemptions claimed are in fact required for the purpose of safeguarding national security before issuing a certificate.
      The right of appeal against a national security certificate is an important new safeguard. It represents an advance on the 1984 Act, which offered no appeal rights. Appeals will be considered by a specially constituted panel of the data protection tribunal, whose membership will be drawn from the chairman and deputy chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor and designated by him as being capable of hearing such appeals.
      My hon. Friend's amendment would, perversely, have the effect of extending the roles of certain commissioners well beyond those that Parliament intended for them. Commissioners were appointed to carry out certain well-defined and limited functions specifically in relation to the security and intelligence services, the use of intrusive surveillance by the police and the interception of communications. Furthermore, the commissioners' remits by no means cover the whole field encompassed by the national security exemption.
      The arrangements set out in clause 28, as drafted, give continued effect to the well-established policy that personal data should be exempt from the main elements of the data protection regime, including supervision by the Data Protection Commissioner, where that is necessary in order to safeguard national security. My hon. Friend

      587
      chooses not to recognise that the exemption is balanced by the provision for appeals to be made to the tribunal against the issue of ministerial exemption certificates. My hon. Friend's amendment would undermine that policy.
      Mr. Cohen: I hear what my hon. Friend has said, particularly in his initial comments. The thrust of my argument is that, under the 1984 Act, the security services have a legal duty to comply with the data protection principles, although they do not have to register. The Bill takes away that duty in the law for security services to comply. Is the Minister saying that I have misread the situation—that the security services still have a duty to comply with the data protection principles and that the 1984 Act has not been weakened in any way?
      Mr. Howarth: I apologise if my hon. Friend misunderstood me earlier. The 1984 Act exempts the security services from the principles, and it is important to recognise that fact. In light of my arguments and the necessity for such arrangements, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Cohen: I will seek to withdraw my amendment, as I hear what the Minister has said. However, I ask him to re-examine his last comment that the 1984 Act did not require the security services to comply with the data protection principles. As I understand it, section 2(2) of part I of the Act requires them to comply with those principles. I ask my hon. Friend to re-examine that point and perhaps clarify the situation in writing. On the basis of my hon. Friend's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

    Clause 29

      CRIME AND TAXATION
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 17, line 45, after 'prevention', insert 'investigation'.
      This is the first of two or three important points that the Opposition wish to raise on Report. The entire Committee stage was characterised by several debates about the importance of safeguarding those organisations, other than the police service and public authorities, whose role is to protect us from the criminal and fraudulent activities of others.
      I shall briefly explain the background. The Bill essentially blocks or prevents the processing of sensitive data, including matters relating to criminal convictions and criminal records, other than in the case of certain specific exemptions. The main exemptions with regard to crime are set out in clause 29. Those exemptions are clearly enshrined in article 13 of the directive, which the Bill seeks to implement in our law.
      The specific exemption is that personal data may, in certain circumstances, be exempt from the provisions of the Bill if they are processed for the prevention or detection of crime. Article 13 refers not just to the prevention or detection of crime and the prosecution of criminal offences but to the investigation of crime. We believe that the inclusion of the word "investigation" in the Bill will give added comfort to those who undertake risk assessment work in order to combat potential fraud
      588
      involving credit cards, false insurance claims and so on. Much of that work is of an exploratory nature, when there is no evidence of any crime.
      Investigation and detection are two separate activities. For instance, let us suppose that we are talking about a suspicious death. When it is clear that that suspicious death is the result of a murder, the investigation seeks to detect who committed that murder. However, if there is a suspicious death and the investigation seeks to establish the circumstances of that death, it may be discovered that there was no murder at all. However, there is an investigation. Commercial organisations conduct such routine investigations every day in assessing whether certain people are making a succession of fraudulent insurance claims or are involved in credit card or other banking or financial fraud. Many of their investigations conclude that there was no crime committed in a particular case.
      As article 13 gives Parliament the opportunity to incorporate the word "investigation" of crime and criminal offences in our legislation, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the Government are so against including that word. The Minister will argue that that word is superfluous, and that, in the Government's judgment, prevention or detection of crime is adequate. If that is the case, why on earth does the directive allow for the prevention, investigation or detection of crime? Clearly the intention when the directive was drafted was that the word "investigation" would add comfort to the scope of the exemption. Given the seriousness of what we are attempting to provide for, I do not understand why the Government are so against it.
      8 pm
      Although we had a lengthy debate in Committee, and although we acknowledge that Ministers have said that they will give other comforts to those organizations—I should state for the sake of the record that the order-making power at paragraph 9 of schedule 3 provides that the Secretary of State may exempt several specific circumstances from a number of provisions—the Bill would be better if it included the word "investigation". That word adds something, and we thought it important for that reason to draw the House's attention to the matter. I ask hon. Members to accept the amendment.
      Mr. George Howarth: I hope to convince the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr.Greenway), as he anticipated, that his amendment is unnecessary. Clause 29 sets out specific exemptions that are needed to tackle crime and to collect taxes. They variously affect the fairness and lawfulness principles, subject access, subject information and the non-disclosure provisions. Between them, the purposes set out in subsection (1)(a) and (b) cover the whole process of tackling crime—from measures intended to prevent crime being committed, to the prosecution of an offender if a crime occurs.
      The clause does not leave any gaps. The phrases
      "prevention or detection of crime"
      and
      "apprehension or prosecution of offenders"
      are familiar from the Data Protection Act 1984. They embrace the whole investigative process, which is covered by a combination of "detection", "apprehension"

      589
      and "prosecution". The investigation of a crime is an activity rather than a purpose. There are a number of purposes for which someone might want to investigate a crime: they might be benign, such as academic research, or not, such as the furtherance of a crime. The hon. Member for Ryedale went some way to acknowledge that point.
      The scope of clause 29 is limited to the purposes of law enforcement and public protection. The investigation of a crime in that context is limited in its purposes to the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Those are the only relevant objects of criminal investigation for current purposes, and they are already covered by clause 29.
      There is no disagreement between the hon. Member for Ryedale and the Government. The amendment is simply not necessary to achieve the effect that he and I want to achieve. In the light of that, I hope that he will withdraw it.
      Mr. Greenway: As the Minister said, I had anticipated his answer, and it was very much the answer that we got in Standing Committee.
      Mr. Hoon: Consistent.
      Mr. Greenway: It certainly is consistent—and we have been consistent in our argument.
      The Minister has not answered on why the word "investigation" appears in the directive but not in the Bill. We must agree to differ, although Conservative Members must take every opportunity to ensure not only that the directive is properly implemented but that the Bill is absolutely clear and as comprehensive as it needs to be.
      We clearly disagree, and I thought it right to draw the House's attention to this important issue. Over the past few months, many hon. Members have received letters from the organisations to which I referred about their work in combating fraud and criminal activity. We are disappointed that we cannot persuade the Minister on the amendment, but have no wish to divide the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 18, line 1, after 'offenders', insert—
      '(ba) the safeguarding of public security,'.
      On 22 June, during the Report stage of the Crime and Disorder Bill, there was an important exchange between the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and the Home Secretary about the extent to which the data protection legislation inhibits the availability and disclosure of information to deal with the vexed problem of football hooligans. I have come across that question before. It was raised seven or eight years ago during the Home Affairs Committee's in-depth inquiry into the policing of football hooligans following the 1990 world cup.
      The gist of the problem is that information about certain individuals is available but cannot be disclosed to ferry companies or to organisations and football clubs that are issuing tickets because that would breach the data protection legislation. The Bill gives even more comfort
      590
      to data subjects in protecting their rights over sensitive information about criminal matters, especially when that information has not been tested in the courts, and even though the football intelligence unit may have been monitoring the behaviour of certain individuals. Those people may not have been prosecuted even though the police are only too well aware that, given half a chance, they would cause mayhem. Sadly, some of our own people, and others, have caused mayhem in France and Belgium over the past two or three weeks. In his response to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, the Home Secretary acknowledged not only that that is a problem, but that he would like to do something about it, if that was at all possible. The Minister is well aware of that.
      I have spent some time considering the extent to which we might improve the position through the Bill. I previously referred to article 13 on the question of the prevention, investigation and detection of crime, which is one of the exemptions permitted in legislation. It also refers to the national security exemption, which the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) mentioned, and to our defence. Furthermore, it allows national legislation implementing the directive to safeguard public security through an exemption. That is all that we seek: the amendment would safeguard public security, as provided for in the directive. We believe that, if the amendement were accepted, the police would be strengthened and given opportunities to deal with the vexed problem of these louts and hooligans, who have caused so much mayhem and trouble to all of us.
      The Minister, who comes from Liverpool, knows exactly the extent to which people in his city are heartily sick of the handful who cause such trouble and give the rest a bad name. We debated this extremely important matter not long ago in the context of the Hillsborough tragedy. We are not making the suggestion glibly as an off-the-cuff solution; it is a sincere and genuine effort to help in the fight against hooliganism, which the entire country wants the Government to tackle.
      I cannot see why the measure would create difficulties for the implementation of the directive. If allowing the police an exemption to deal more effectively with football hooligans does not safeguard the peace and tranquillity of the country, I do not know what does. I can think of nothing that has caused as much alarm and concern to those affected as the antics of those mindless lads.
      I hope that I have convinced the House that the amendment is extremely important. The Minister may prefer to change the wording. He has tabled a stack of amendments, some of which we have discussed already. The difficulty is that, once we conclude tonight's Report stage and the Bill returns to the other House, the opportunity to amend the Bill will have gone. If the Government accept the amendment tonight, the other place will at least have an opportunity to put it into a more appropriate form of words with which the Government might feel more comfortable. It is 14 years since the House last legislated on data protection; those of us who served on the Standing Committee, and doubtless all the officials and organisations who have had to deal with this complex Bill, hope to goodness that it is at least another 14 years before we do so again. Clearly, we shall not have an early opportunity to do something about this problem in the future, so I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the argument that we have set out and agree to accept the amendment.
      Mr. George Howarth: I associate myself with the sentiment behind the amendment. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) knows from statements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made that, like him, we consider those hooligans to be a disgrace not just to the part of the world that I come from—Liverpool—but to every town and city in the country. The Government are determined to do all that we can to reduce football hooliganism.
      The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are conducting a review of football-related legislation, which will take account of the lessons to be learned from what happened in France. It is clear that we need to consider implementing measures to deal with the football hooligan element who tarnish our reputation abroad. A number of options will be considered, including the ability to restrict those who cause trouble abroad. I know that, in raising these issues, the hon. Gentleman is sincere about what he seeks to achieve.
      Home Office Ministers are sympathetic to proposals to have special checks, for example, on recipients of world cup tickets. We have asked the Association of Chief Police Officers sub-committee on disclosure to explore the legality and feasibility of making those checks. People who apply to join the England members club, which is run by the Football Association, are checked against a National Criminal Intelligence Service database, which holds information about persons who are known to be, or suspected of being, involved in organised criminality associated with football. NCIS is registered with the Data Protection Registrar, and the Football Association is listed as a body to which NCIS intends, or may wish, to disclose data.
      8.15 pm
      Currently, ACPO has agreed that criminal records should be released only for limited purposes—mainly relating to national security, probity in the administration of the law and protection of vulnerable people, especially children. ACPO concluded that there was very significant legal doubt about its ability to release other information, which could not be resolved within the tight time scale. That was a matter not of data protection, but of its powers under the general law. There was also the practical difficulty of how to be sure that the criminal records released related to the people concerned, rather than to others of the same name.
      In any event, there would have been further difficulties about compliance with the Data Protection Act 1984 principles of fair obtaining and processing. The Data Protection Registrar was concerned that nothing had been said to people when they applied for tickets in the first instance, and that the check would have been indiscriminate, without regard to suspicion in individual cases. It appeared that the check would have gone much wider than the particular needs of preventing football hooliganism. The FA's desire to check hooliganism was entirely right and proper: the issue was whether that was the right way in which to do it.
      The ACPO sub-committee is looking afresh at the issues involved. It was not possible to resolve the issues in the short time available before the world cup, but there is now an opportunity for ACPO, the FA and, as necessary, the Data Protection Registrar to consult about
      592
      the right approach to be taken in future. It is important to have had this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ryedale for raising the issue.
      Mr. Greenway: I think that the Minister is about to invite me to withdraw the amendment. I entirely understand why he may not wish to accept it, but can he assure me that if the outcome of the discussions—I am grateful for his offer that we should continue to be part of them—is that an amendment to the legislation is required, there would not be a bar to making such a legislative change?
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and I am anxious to be as constructive as possible. Once all the consultations with the Data Protection Registrar, ACPO and others are complete, we shall be required to take some action. The Government, particularly the Secretary of State, have made it plain that we are committed to taking whatever action is sensible and necessary to eradicate the problem. If data protection principles are involved, that necessarily implies some action in that direction as well. I do not know exactly what the vehicle would be and I do not want to give assurances on that, but the Government certainly wish to take action and I am sure that the whole House would support us. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister. Clearly, there is consensus across the Chamber that what can be done should be done. Given what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

    Clause 30

      HEALTH AND SOCIAL WORK
      Mr. Hoon: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 18, line 47, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Secretary of State may by order exempt from the subject information provisions, or modify those provisions in relation to—

      (a) personal data in respect of which the data controller is the proprietor of, or a teacher at, a school, and which consist of information relating to persons who are or have been pupils at the school, or

      (b) personal data in respect of which the data controller is an education authority in Scotland, and which consist of information relating to persons who are receiving, or have received, further education provided by the authority.'

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 84 to 91 and the Government new schedule.
      Mr. Hoon: Amendments Nos. 83 to 91 and new schedule 1 complete an exercise that was begun in Standing Committee. The Government tabled amendments to bring within the scope of the Bill the records currently covered by the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 and the Access to Health Records Act 1990. The main purpose was to ensure that the arrangements

      593
      made by the Bill to give effect to the European Court judgment in the case of Gaskin applied to the records covered by the 1987 and 1990 Acts.
      The Gaskin judgment deals with subject access requests that are refused because giving the information would identify third parties who have not consented. The judgment says that there must be an independent mechanism for reviewing such refusals. The Bill provides that mechanism by allowing data subjects to go to the commissioner or the courts in such cases.
      The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the judgment is adhered to in the case of records under the Education (School Records) Regulations 1989 and the corresponding Scotland and Northern Ireland legislation. Such records are held by schools on pupils and former pupils. The new schedule gives rights of access to information held in certain unstructured manual records, to which the provisions of the Bill would not otherwise apply. The amendments will bring those records within the scope of the Bill, and thereby give effect to the Gaskin judgment. I hope that the House agrees that the amendments serve a useful and important purpose.
      Mr. Greenway: The Gaskin judgment required the Government to introduce a range of amendments to the Bill, most of which were dealt with in Committee. As the Minister said, these are the outstanding amendments. I hope that, when the Bill returns to the other place, they will be accepted as speedily and as graciously as they have been by the Opposition parties tonight and in Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 84, in page 19, line 16, at end insert—
      '() In this section—
      "education authority" and "further education" have the same meaning as in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act"), and
      "proprietor"—

      (a) in relation to a school in England or Wales, has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996,

      (b) in relation to a school in Scotland, means—

      (i) in the case of a self-governing school, the board of management within the meaning of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989,

      (ii) in the case of an independent school, the proprietor within the meaning of the 1980 Act,

      (iii) in the case of a grant aided school, the managers within the meaning of the 1980 Act, and

      (iv) in the case of a public school, the education authority within the meaning of the 1980 Act, and

      (c) in relation to a school in Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and includes, in the case of a controlled school, the Board of Governors of the school.'.—[Mr. Hoon.]

    Clause 31

      REGULATORY ACTIVITY
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—
      '() the Welsh Administration Ombudsman,'.—[Mr. Hoon.]

    Clause 32
      JOURNALISM, LITERATURE AND ART
      Amendment made: No. 32, in page 21, line 10, leave out '14' and insert '14(1) to (3)'.—[Mr. Hoon.]
    Clause 34

      INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BY OR UNDER ENACTMENT
      Mr. Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 22, line 30, at end insert—
      '(2) The Secretary of State may by order, where personal data are held on a public register, lay down conditions which shall be complied with by any person who has access to the register.
      (3) An order under this section may make specific provisions with respect to a particular public register.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in clause 67, page 41, line 3, at end insert 'section 34'.
      Mr. Cohen: The purpose of the amendments is to enable the Secretary of State to impose statutory conditions to protect lists of shareholders, the electoral roll and other public registers. Publicly available registers are unprotected. They are wide open to abuse, and, in most cases, there is no control over who has access to them or how they are used. On 22 April 1997, The Times noted that the Mayfair rapist selected his rich victims from the electoral roll.
      I note from my recent parliamentary questions to all Government Departments that several Ministries are not sure for what public records they are responsible. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions said that information on what public records it was responsible for was not held centrally. That is astonishing. Several public registers are not actually publicly available. The Home Office keeps a register of forensic pathologists that is available to the public, which is useful information for criminals to access.
      Public registers get scant protection under the Bill. The most familiar example of a public register is the electoral roll, copies of which can be obtained by any person for any purpose. Electoral registration officers have no discretion on whether to provide information, even to the most disreputable of characters. The position on data protection and the electoral roll is intolerable.
      Mr. Allan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent confusion about whether electoral registration officers can give access to the register in computerised as opposed to paper form? It is a problem for political parties if they cannot obtain access to the computerised form. We are interested to know how that will be dealt with in the Bill. Both the paper and the computerised form will be covered by data protection principles.
      Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The way things are going, I suspect that the computerised form and other forms will be available to whoever wants them.
      Data subjects are obliged by law to provide names and addresses; failure to do so could result in a hefty £400 fine. Any person can obtain a copy of those details

      595
      without the data subject being informed. Under clause 34, the electoral returning officer, as data controller, has no obligation to inform data subjects about who has accessed. the register. A clear condition could be imposed that those who access the register should be required to identify themselves, and that list could be publicly available.
      I am in favour of certain limits on public registers. For example, the electoral roll should be used only for electoral purposes, unless the elector consents to its use for other purposes. However, I recognise that many organisations have developed goods and services businesses on the basis of this publicly available information. My amendment would not stop any misuse directly: it would merely provide a mechanism to permit the Secretary of State to protect the public should the need arise, and to introduce new rules gradually, so that, if appropriate, such organisations could adjust their practice and be weaned off public sources of information over a period.
      Paragraph 11(c) of schedule 8 delays the implementation of the eighth principle on the transfer of personal data abroad for personal data currently processed from the electoral register. As far as I can see, that provision negates any protection afforded by paragraph 14 of part II of schedule 1. If the eighth principle does not apply, it is difficult to see how the Secretary of State can define restrictions by order.
      MPs usually live and vote in their constituency. Under the provision in schedule 8, there is nothing to prevent Saddam Hussein or any terrorist or malicious person from being able to purchase copies of the register, in computerised form, to find out where MPs or other well-known individuals live. Admittedly, it is a crude method. Because of his common surname, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) might evade detection. However, one wonders how many people appear on the electoral roll with the surname of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) or of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr.Öpik). Someone might even look up the name Beckham for malicious purposes. Will the Minister explain why data protection legislation seems to expose MPs and others in the public eye to that risk?
      After the passage of the Bill, the Minister should take a co-ordinated look at how public registers are kept, who has access to them and what uses are permissible.
      Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for allowing us to have this short debate, which will be of assistance. He is concerned about clause 34, which performs an important function. It ensures that certain key provisions of the data protection regime do not conflict with the rules relating to information that is required by statute to be made public.
      As my hon Friend's amendments recognise, the provision is essentially about public registers. He gave a number of examples: the registers of births, marriages and deaths, registers held by Companies House, the electoral register, and so on. The essential feature of all those registers, which is recognised in clause 34, is that they are all governed by their own discrete legislation.
      Those statutes will determine the detailed conditions that apply to the information contained in the registers. They will cover matters such as the nature of the
      596
      information contained in the registers, the conditions governing access to the registers, the accuracy of the information, and so on.
      The purpose of clause 34 is to ensure that the detailed rules of the specific statutes, rather than the general data protection rules governing the registers, determine those matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that that is sensible. The information contained in the registers is collected for a specific and particular purpose. It is much more appropriate for the specific statute to determine the relevant conditions that apply than for the general data protection legislation to do so. That is not to say that the data protection rules do not apply at all. To the extent that the data protection principles, and other provisions of data protection law, are not dealt with expressly in the specific statutes, they will apply. That is the position under the 1984 Act, and it will be maintained in the Bill.
      8.30 pm
      I remind my hon. Friend that clause 34 does not provide an exemption for the subsequent use of data collected from the registers. To the extent that any of those who obtain personal data from public registers process those data in a way that would be caught by the Bill, they would have to comply in full with the requirements set out in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend wants to go a little beyond that. He wants to provide the Secretary of State with the power to specify conditions governing access to specific public registers. I hope that I have made it clear why the Government do not believe that that is the right approach. Moreover, I invite my hon. Friend—who I know is extremely knowledgeable on this matter—to consider how his proposed new arrangements would be enforced. Not all those seeking access to the registers would become data controllers, so the conditions could not be enforced through the various mechanisms set out in the Bill. Again, that argues for the conditions applying to particular registers to be set by the parent enactments—if I may use that phrase—which will be able to make suitable arrangements for enforcement.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that that is the right way forward, and that it is better for these issues to be dealt with in the specific context of the Acts that deal with registers rather than in the context of wider data protection legislation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to the attention of the House, but I invite him, in the light of what I have said, to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right in saying that I want to go further and impose more general data protection controls on public registers. However, I acknowledge that he has made some good points, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 40

      ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
      Mr. Cohen: I should like to speak to amendment No. 1, in page 23, line 32, to leave out "the fourth" and insert "any". However, I welcome the Government amendments that have been grouped with it, which,

      597
      I think, accept the points that I wanted to make. The rights granted by article 12 (b) and (c) of the European directive, as established by the Bill, should apply to all the data protection principles, and not only to the fourth principle, as originally proposed, so that unlawful and unfairly obtained data—not only inaccurate data—are covered.
      There was a danger that the Bill would not implement the data subject's rights under those two articles of the directive, which would also have meant a lessening of protection for data subjects under the Data Protection Act 1984. I welcome the Government amendments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is not moving amendment No. 1?
      Mr. Cohen: Yes. I am prepared not to move it, as I accept the Government amendments.
      Amendments made: No. 33, in page 23, line 33, leave out 'may' and insert
      'which requires the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy any inaccurate data may also'.
      No. 34, in page 23, line 34, leave out 'any inaccurate data and'.
      No. 35, in page 23, line 36, leave out 'or' and insert—
      '(3A) An enforcement notice in respect of a contravention of the fourth data protection principle'.
      No. 36, in page 23, line 39, leave out from 'party' to second 'to' and insert
      'may require the data controller either—

      (a) to rectify, block, erase or destroy any inaccurate data and any other data held by him and containing an expression of opinion as mentioned in subsection (3), or

      (b)'.

      No. 37, in page 24, line 2, leave out from 'notice' to 'or' in line 4 and insert
      'requires the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy any personal data'.
      No. 38, in page 24, line 6, leave out 'were inaccurate' and insert
      'had been processed in contravention of any of the data protection principles'.—[Mr. Hoon.]
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 24, line 28, at end insert—
      '(7A) The Commissioner shall maintain a register containing—

      (a) a copy of every enforcement notice issued under this section;

      (b) such other particulars relating to such notices as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.

      (7B) The provisions of sections 19(6) and (7) shall apply in relation to the register maintained under this section as they do in relation to the register maintained under section 19(1).'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in clause 42, page 25, line 20, at end insert
      'and may, if he considers it appropriate, inform any other person'.
      598
      No. 17, in clause 59, page 36, line 44, leave out
      'necessary for reasons of substantial'
      and insert 'in the'.
      Government amendment No. 46.
      No. 18, in page 36, line 44, leave out 'substantial'.
      Mr. Shepherd: The amendments reflect concern about a new prohibition on the release of information in clause 59, which would make it an offence for the Data Protection Commissioner or her staff to disclose information about any identifiable business or individual other than in very limited circumstances. The offence would be committed even if the disclosure caused no harm to commercial confidentiality, for example. No such offence exists under the Data Protection Act 1984.
      The provision is likely to prevent the commissioner from publicly identifying businesses that have been found to be misusing personal data about individuals by obtaining data through deception, for example, or by selling private information for commercial purposes. The commissioner may be unable to reveal that she has received large numbers of complaints about a particular company, that a company has failed to respond to requests to improve its practices or that an enforcement notice has been served against a firm. Equally, it may be an offence to reveal that a business has agreed to correct a problem without formal action, or that a complaint had proved unfounded.
      The registrar has expressed concern at the new provision, which she says may require her and her staff to be unnecessarily guarded in future. The result may be both to deny the public information that they should have and to undermine public confidence in the commissioner's work, by preventing her from explaining what action she has taken to deal with complaints relating to matters of public concern.
      The offence is not limited to disclosures likely to cause actual harm, but will be caused by any disclosure of any information about an identifiable business. That contradicts the policy established by the previous Government, whose 1993 White Paper on open government provided that, in any new offences involving the disclosure of information,
      "the presumption will be in favour of the inclusion of a harm test".
      It is also inconsistent with this Government's proposals for a freedom of information Act. The freedom of information White Paper proposes that information should be withheld only where disclosure would cause either harm or substantial harm to specified interests. Existing statutory restrictions on disclosure are being reviewed with a view to repealing or amending those that do not reflect the proposed harm test.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) tabled an amendment to restrict the offence to information that is potentially damaging. The amendment was not accepted. The Government say that the new offence is required by the European data protection directive, which states that national supervisory authorities must be subject to
      "a duty of professional secrecy".
      However, the registrar's view, as expressed in January, is that that obligation can be met without the creation of a new criminal offence. Moreover, the directive contains

      599
      a number of pro-disclosure provisions, which would permit a far more balanced approach. They include recital 72, which states that
      "this Directive allows the principle of public access to official documents to be taken into account when implementing the principles set out in this Directive",
      and recital 63, which states that supervisory authorities
      "must help to ensure transparency of processing".
      The Government maintain that the restriction is not as serious as it seems, as the commissioner has a discretion to release information under clause 51(2), which states:
      "The Commissioner shall arrange for the dissemination in such form and manner as he considers appropriate of such information as it may appear to him expedient to give to the public about the operation of this Act, about good practice, and about other matters within the scope of his functions under this Act".
      However, precedent under similar provisions suggests that that may be of limited value.
      For example, the Health and Safety Commission and Executive are prohibited from disclosing information unless it is for the purposes of their functions, but they are required to ensure that people concerned with matters relevant to the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc. 1974 are
      "kept informed of, and adequately advised on"
      those matters. The HSC and HSE interpret those two requirements restrictively, and say that they are prohibited from revealing information about individual premises unless to do so would directly prevent risk, or is necessary to protect health and safety. Requests for information about identifiable premises from people who are not themselves in danger, including Members of Parliament, researchers and journalists, are usually refused. The explicit prohibition on releasing information about identifiable businesses is therefore likely to override the commissioner's general discretion to release information, unless, under clause 59(2)(c),
      "the disclosure is made for the purposes of, and is necessary for, the discharge of…any functions under this Act".
      It would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that a particular disclosure was necessary for any function under this Act. If the function can be discharged without the disclosure, the disclosure will not be necessary, and, indeed, will be illegal.
      Clause 59(2) permits disclosure in certain other limited circumstances—for example, when the information is already publicly available, when the individual or business concerned consents to the disclosure and when disclosure is made in connection with legal proceedings. The subsection also provides for a limited, highly restrictive, public interest defence.
      The amendments would require the commissioner to maintain a public register of enforcement notices, whose disclosure might otherwise constitute an offence. They would permit—but not require—the commissioner to reveal the results of an assessment of whether a particular business was complying with the legislation. At present, that information can be revealed only to the person who asks for the assessment, and its disclosure to a Member of Parliament or a journalist could be an offence. The amendments also attempt to strengthen the public interest defence available to the commissioner or her staff.
      Let me deal first with amendment No. 15. Under clause 41, the commissioner may serve an enforcement notice when it appears to her that a data controller is
      600
      contravening any of the data protection principles. The notice may require the controller to take specified action or to stop processing data. The amendment requires the establishment of a register of such notices, as is made clear in new subsection (7A), which would have to be available to the public, free of charge, at all reasonable times. Certified copies of entries could be obtained on payment of any prescribed fee. That is provided for by new subsection (7B), which applies the existing provisions of clause 19(6) and (7), relating to the data protection regime.
      The amendment would bring the Bill into line with existing legislation, such as the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988 and the Environment Protection Act 1990, which require the establishment of public registers of enforcement notices about environmental and safety hazards. Paragraph (b) of new subsection (7A) would allow the Secretary of State, by order, to require other information relating to such notices to be included in the register. That would allow the fact that a notice had been cancelled under clause 41, or was the subject of an appeal under clause 48, to be recorded; it might also permit the person on whom the notice had been served to add a statement of explanation or mitigation to the register.
      Amendment No. 16 refers to clause 42. Under clause 42(1), a person who believes that he or she has been directly affected by any processing of personal data may ask the commissioner for an assessment of whether that processing breaches the Act's requirements. After carrying out the assessment, the commissioner must inform the applicant, to the extent that she considers appropriate, of
      "any view formed or action taken as a result".
      That is in clause 42(4)(b).
      8.45 pm
      However, while the applicant must be informed of the outcome, the commissioner may commit an offence under clause 59 by revealing the same information to any other person. Thus, although there may have been a well-publicised complaint about a particular practice, the commissioner may not tell anyone—including a journalist, a Member of Parliament or another potentially affected person—about her findings. The amendment allows, but does not require, the commissioner to make such disclosures; however, a requirement may arise under the proposed freedom of information Act.
      The discretion is appropriate in this instance. When a complaint relates purely to the circumstances of an individual applicant, wider disclosure may not be appropriate; but when the issue is of general concern and affects a large number of people, disclosure may be justified—if, for example, it reveals that a bank is failing to safeguard personal data about its customers.
      There is no reason why the level of disclosure proposed in the amendment should be thought to contravene the obligation of professional secrecy required by the directive, given that the directive also provides that supervisory authorities
      "must help to ensure transparency of processing".
      Let me now deal with amendment No. 17. A public interest test is available under clause 59(2)(e) should the commissioner, or a member of her staff, be prosecuted for an offence relating to the disclosure of information.

      601
      The test is particularly restrictive, and amendments Nos. 17 and 18 seek to remove some of the restrictive features. Clause 59(2)(e) provides that no offence is committed if
      "having regard to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of any person, the disclosure is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest."
      That means that it would have to be established that the disclosure was "necessary", not just desirable, in the public interest, and that the public interest related to the
      "rights and freedoms or legitimate interests"
      of others. That term does not, on the face of it, acknowledge the public interest in the accountability of the commissioner's work. Moreover, the public interest itself would have to be "substantial".
      It is hard to see why that public interest test should be set down so strictly, particularly as most of the Bill's other public interest tests are less demanding. For example, there is no requirement that the public interest be "substantial" before a newspaper can publish personal data under the public interest test in clause 32(1)(b).
      Amendment No. 17 would remove the requirement that the disclosure be "necessary" and that the public interest be "substantial". The defence, as amended, would read:
      "having regard to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of any person, the disclosure is in the public interest."
      Amendment No. 18 and Government amendment No. 46 cover similar ground. Amendment No. 18 is an alternative to amendment No. 17. It would delete the word "substantial" in clause 59, but would retain the word "necessary". The amended clause would then read:
      "having regard to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of any person, the disclosure is necessary for reasons of public interest."
      The wording is effectively identical to amendment No. 46, tabled by the Home Secretary. Under that amendment, the clause would read:
      "having regard to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of any person, the disclosure is necessary in the public interest."
      I hope that the Government will withdraw their amendment and support mine, because the word "necessary" would remain a problem with both amendment No. 18 and amendment No. 46. A disclosure that was "desirable" in the public interest, but not "necessary", would not be permitted under those amendments. There is an important distinction between the two, and I hope that the Government will accept my amendments.
      Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) very adequately set out the concerns of the Data Protection Registrar. I tried to impress on the Government the importance of several concerns about the provisions that create the offence of unlawful disclosure of information by staff. People who are only doing their job may find themselves committing a criminal offence. The House must be sure that the legislation provides for that criminal offence only when it is strictly necessary.
      I was disappointed in Committee that the Government did not accept the harm test to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred. There seems to
      602
      be an inequality in the public interest test, in that the word "necessary" will apply to this provision, even when the Government amendments are made, but not to other exemptions in the Bill. I cannot for the life of me understand why staff who are only doing their job should be subject to a greater hurdle than others when disclosure is accidental, especially as some of the exemptions, as in clause 32, are extremely wide.
      I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that those are genuine concerns. If Government amendment No. 46 is made, it would at least allow the other place to return to the matter when it considers our amendments. With that in mind, it may not be too late for the Government to reconsider the word "necessary", to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills so rightly referred.
      Mr. George Howarth: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his hard work and the good advice that he often takes on these matters. His concern about confidentiality of information is well recognised and respected, and he moved the amendment very much in that spirit.
      Clause 40 is a key part of the Bill. It enables the commissioner to issue enforcement notices requiring compliance with data protection principles. Amendment No. 15 would require the commissioner to maintain a register of enforcement notices, to be accessible in much the same way as the main register of data controllers' notifications provided for in clause 19.
      The idea of keeping a public record of enforcement notices has been suggested in the past, and we are not unsympathetic to it in principle. I understand that the Data Protection Registrar herself has expressed some interest in such a record, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said.
      It was with such an idea in mind that the Government tabled an amendment in Committee to add clause 19(2)(b), allowing the Secretary of State, by notification regulations, to authorise or require the commissioner to include in the register of notifications maintained under that clause certain information in addition to the basic registrable particulars.
      It would be possible to use the provision to add information about enforcement notices to the register. Under clause 25, the commissioner can make proposals for the content of notification regulations. The Government look forward to hearing the commissioner's views and will consider the issue further in that context. Against that background, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment No. 16 would explicitly allow the commissioner to tell any other person, as well as the originator, the outcome of a request for assessment of the compliance of any particular processing with the provisions of the law. I recognise that the provision is discretionary, but I do not think it appropriate for the legislation to be framed in that way.
      Requests for assessment may deal with essentially private matters—that is, private either to the data subject or to the data controller. More fundamentally, such requests are at most preliminaries to enforcement action, and they may come to nothing, as there may be perfectly good answers to the questions. I am not in favour of any general presumption in favour of releasing the results of assessments. That is not to say that they might not emerge in one form or another under other parts of the Bill.

      603
      Clause 51 places general duties on the commissioner to promote good practice and to disseminate material that she considers appropriate, about the operation of the Act, good practice and any other matters within the scope of his functions. Anonymised information from assessments may appear in one of those contexts, and the result of any assessment may be quoted in enforcement proceedings.
      I do not think that a power at large, qualified only by the general term "appropriate", fits what we need in this targeted legislation. Release of information when it serves a particular purpose is fine; but otherwise, just as we have to be careful with the interests of data subjects, we have to be careful with the interests of data controllers. I invite the hon. Member for Aldridge—Brownhills to reflect on the provisions of clause 51 and not to press to a vote amendment No. 16, which is a general amendment to clause 42.
      Clause 59 is an important and, I accept, difficult provision. It is important because it discharges the obligation on us to ensure that the supervisory authority—the Data Protection Commissioner and her staff—are subject to a duty of what the directive calls "professional secrecy", in respect of the confidential information to which they have access.
      We have found it difficult to get the provision right. Our original proposal in another place was criticised by the Data Protection Registrar, and we revised it on Report there, but we could not, and still cannot, accede to pressure to remove it; the directive requires us to have a statutory provision, which needs to be enforceable through a criminal sanction.
      We have considered the detail further in the light of representations, not least from the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), and of the Government's own commitment to freedom of information legislation, which the former hon. Gentleman rightly prayed in aid for his argument.
      Clause 59 states that one way in which a disclosure may be made with lawful authority is if,
      "having regard to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interest of any person. the disclosure is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest."
      Government amendment No. 46 replaces that with a simple test of necessity in the public interest. I hope that the hon. Member for Aldridge—Brownhills will accept that that goes further in the direction of freedom of information, while still complying with the directive. That is a difficult balance, but amendment No. 46 achieves it.
      Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 go in much the same direction, as the hon. Gentleman said. I prefer the Government's wording, for two reasons. First, it maintains the necessity test, which is important for an exemption from the directive's requirements. Secondly, our words are simpler. "In the" rather than "for reasons of is a simpler way to express the point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to withdraw his wording in favour of ours.
      The hon. Gentleman argued that clause 59 could, perhaps, go further, and we did consider whether there was further scope for easing the restrictions that the clause imposes, while keeping it consistent with the directive. So far, we have been unable to find a way to do that, but we shall certainly continue to have regard for that point as we continue our work on freedom of information. If we can identify any way in which restrictions can
      604
      properly be eased, we shall bring forward any necessary amendment in freedom of information legislation. There is scope to revisit the point within that framework, provided that we can find a suitable way to achieve what the hon. Gentleman and the Government want.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a considered response to his concerns, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment, safe in the knowledge that we recognise his concerns and are aware of the possibility of revisiting the point at a later stage.
      9 pm
      Mr. Shepherd: I am extremely disappointed by that reply. I took the trouble to provide the Government with my notes for the debate, and I thought that they would address the issues raised in those notes. However, they have not done so. I thought that there were some benefits in my approach. I was being helpful on the White Paper. There is a muddle, and there is grave concern about how matters interrelate, so I was trying to set out the position. I was also trying to state clearly the anxieties expressed by the Data Protection Registrar, Mrs. France, and by professionals in the field.
      I was trying to assist the Government by preventing the need for this business to return to the House once the Lords have amended the Bill along my lines. There is one simple problem in both the Government's amendment and my amendments. My argument is that "necessary" would remain a problem under the amendments. Amendment No. 18 was my fallback position, and I was pleased to see the Government withdraw the substantial point. However, "necessary" is being retained, and that reminds me of my experience under Governments of my own party and their unwillingness to yield once Government amendments had been set out. "Necessary" will remain a problem. A disclosure merely desirable, but not necessary, in the public interest would not be permitted under amendment No. 46. The Minister simply has not addressed that point, although it is of the essence. Perhaps he will consult his colleagues and the civil servants in their Box.
      I would gladly not press amendment No. 18 if the Government would not press amendment No. 46. Then we would have a good raft of amendments that would satisfy the House of Lords. We could prevent the need for the matter to come back.
      Mr. George Howarth: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman; I hold him in the highest regard. I did not have the opportunity to read the notes that he sent to the Home Office, and I apologise for that. I do not believe, however, that his concerns need to be dealt with in the way he states, because the Government amendments go far enough. I will be sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not feel able to withdraw his amendment. He will be able to revisit the matter, as will the House, under the general heading of freedom of information.
      I am loth to say more because I sat through long hours of debate on the Maastricht treaty, and I know of the hon. Gentleman's enormous potential to speak again with alarming frequency and great lucidity. I am desperately anxious not to tempt him to do so.
      Mr. Greenway: The House is in a dilemma. We have only the prospect that the Government's amendment is likely to be carried, and we have to face that reality. Yet that amendment includes the word "necessary" and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that that word is not required. I am being helpful to the Minister when I say that the House can only accept the Government amendment, but the Government must expect that amendment to be amended in the other place because my hon. Friend's arguments are extremely valid.
      The word "necessary" is unnecessary. It is not applied in other parts of the Bill. The only opportunity open to us now is to accept the Government amendment. If the House does so, I ask the Government to think again so that when the Bill goes to the other place the word "necessary" can be deleted.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), and I am concerned.
      I made out a case which I tried to get to the Whips because I understand the urgency with which the Government have to manage their programme. These were detailed arguments, but they were not addressed in detail. I am genuinely disappointed by the points made about the word "necessary". I hope that the House will have to return to the matter; the Lords will take an interest in this.
      The Government moved favourable amendments—I congratulate them on that—as a consequence of the Lords taking a view on certain parts of the Bill. I have no doubt that our liberty is in the interstices of the details of Bills such as this. The matter is extremely important which is why I should have liked a more sympathetic response. The Government have moved some of the way, but I ask them to reflect on what that simple word "necessary" means to the burden of the argument as contained in the clause. Accordingly and with the advice and guidance of my good and hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 43

      INFORMATION NOTICES
      Amendment made: No. 39, in page 26, leave out from end of line 5 to second 'the' in line 6 and insert
      'and, if such an appeal is brought,'—[Mr. Hoon.]

    Clause 44

      SPECIAL INFORMATION NOTICES
      Amendments made: No. 40, in page 26, line 36, leave out from 'which' to end of line 37 and insert
      'proceedings have been stayed under section 32'.
      No. 41, in page 27, leave out from end of line 18 to second 'the' in line 19 and insert
      'and, if such an appeal is brought,'.—[Mr. Hoon.]

    Clause 51
      GENERAL DUTIES OF COMMISSIONER
      Amendment made: No. 42, in page 31, line 14, leave out 'observance' and insert 'following'.—[Mr. Hoon.]
    Clause 53

      ASSISTANCE BY COMMISSIONER IN CASES INVOLVING PROCESSING FOR THE SPECIAL PURPOSES
      Amendment made: No. 43, in page 31, line 33, leave out 'brings' and insert
      'is an actual or prospective party to'.—[Mr. Hoon.]

    Clause 57

      AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN CONTRACTUAL TERMS RELATING TO HEALTH RECORDS
      Amendments made: No. 44, in page 36, line 8, after 'individual' insert—
      '(a)".
      No. 45, in page 36, line 9, at end insert
      'or
      (b) to produce to any other person such a record, copy or part.'.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

    Clause 59
      CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
      Amendment made: No. 46, in page 36, line 44, leave out 'for reasons of substantial' and insert 'in the'.— [Mr. George Howarth.]
    Clause 60

      PROSECUTIONS AND PENALTIES
      Amendment made: No. 79, in page 37, line 20, after '56', insert—
      '() an offence under section 21(2) relating to processing which is assessable processing for the purposes of section 22,'.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

    Clause 68

      MEANING OF "ACCESSIBLE RECORD"
      Amendment made: No. 85, in page 41, line 41, after '(2),' insert—
      '(aa) an educational record as defined by Schedule (Meaning of "educational record"),'.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

    Clause 70

      SUPPLEMENTARY DEFINITIONS
      Amendments made: No. 86, in page 43, line 26, at end insert—
      '"pupil"—

      (a) in relation to a school in England and Wales, means a registered pupil within the meaning of the Education Act 1996,

      (b) in relation to a school in Scotland, means a pupil within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, and

      (c) in relation to a school in Northern Ireland, means a registered pupil within the meaning of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;'

      No. 87, in page 43, line 37, at end insert—
      '"school"—

      (a) in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996,

      (b) in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, and

      (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;

      "teacher" includes—

      (a) in Great Britain, head teacher, and

      (b) in Northern Ireland, the principal of a school;'.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

    Clause 71

      INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS
      Amendments made: No. 47, in page 44, line 17, at end insert—
      'enactment section 70(1)'.
      No. 88, in page 44, line 35, at end insert—
      'pupil (in relation to a school) section 70(1)'.
      No. 89, in page 44, line 40, at end insert—
      'school section 70(1)'.
      No. 90, in page 44, line 44, at end insert—
      'teacher section 70(1)'.
      No. 48, in page 44, leave out line 47.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

    Clause 75

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 49, in page 45, line 13, after 'section' insert—
      '(ee) paragraph 17 of Schedule 5,'.
      No. 91, in page 45, line 13, after 'section' insert—
      '(ef) Schedule (Meaning of "educational record"),'.
      No. 50, in page 45, line 13, after 'section' insert—
      '(eg) Schedule 11.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

    New Schedule
      MEANING OF "EDUCATIONAL RECORD"
        'Meaning of "educational record" for purposes of section 68
        1. For the purposes of section 68 "educational record" means any record to which paragraph 2, 5 or 7 applies.

        England and Wales
        2. This paragraph applies to any record of information which—

        (a) is processed by or on behalf of the governing body of, or a teacher at, any school in England and Wales specified in paragraph 3,

        (b) relates to any person who is or has been a pupil at the school, and

        (c) originated from or was supplied by or on behalf of any of the persons specified in paragraph 4,

        other than information which is processed by a teacher solely for the teacher's own use.
        3. The schools referred to in paragraph 2(a) are—

        (a) a school maintained by a local education authority, and

        608

        (b) a special school, as defined by section 6(2) of the Education Act 1996, which is not so maintained.

        4. The persons referred to in paragraph 2(c) are—

        (a) an employee of the local education authority which maintains the school,

        (b) in the case of—

        (i) a voluntary aided, foundation or foundation special school (within the meaning of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998), or

        (ii) a special school which is not maintained by a local education authority,

        a teacher or other employee at the school (including an educational psychologist engaged by the governing body under a contract for services),

        (c) the pupil to whom the record relates, and

        (d) a parent (as defined by section 576(1) of the Education Act 1996) of that pupil.

        Scotland
        5. This paragraph applies to any record of information which is processed—

        (a) by an education authority in Scotland, and

        (b) for the purpose of the relevant function of the authority, other than information which is processed by a teacher solely for the teacher's own use.

        6. For the purposes of paragraph 5—

        (a) "education authority" means an education authority within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act") or, in relation to a self-governing school, the board of management within the meaning of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 ("the 1989 Act"),

        (b) "the relevant function" means, in relation to each of those authorities, their function under section 1 of the 1980 Act and section 7(1) of the 1989 Act, and

        (c) information processed by an education authority is processed for the purpose of the relevant function of the authority if the processing relates to the discharge of that function in respect of a person—

        (i) who is or has been a pupil in a school provided by the authority, or

        (ii) who receives, or has received, further education (within the meaning of the 1980 Act) so provided.

        Northern Ireland
        7.—(1) This paragraph applies to any record of information which—

        (a) is processed by or on behalf of the Board of Governors of, or a teacher at, any grant-aided school in Northern Ireland,

        (b) relates to any person who is or has been a pupil at the school, and

        (c) originated from or was supplied by or on behalf of any of the persons specified in paragraph 8,

        other than information which is processed by a teacher solely for the teacher's own use.
        (2) In sub-paragraph (1) "grant-aided school" has the same meaning as in the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
        8. The persons referred to in paragraph 7(1) are—

        (a) a teacher at the school,

        (b) an employee of an education and library board, other than such a teacher,

        609

        (c) the pupil to whom the record relates, and

        (d) a parent (as defined by Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986) of that pupil.

        England and Wales: transitory provisions
        9.—(1) Until the appointed day within the meaning of section 20 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, this Schedule shall have effect subject to following modifications.
        (2) Paragraph 3 shall have effect as if for paragraph (b) and the "and" immediately preceding it there were substituted—
        "(aa) a grant-maintained school, as defined by section 183(1) of the Education Act 1996,
        (ab) a grant-maintained special school, as defined by section 337(4) of that Act, and
        (b) a special school, as defined by section 6(2) of that Act, which is neither a maintained special school, as defined by section 337(3) of that Act, nor a grant-maintained special school."
        (3) Paragraph 4(b)(i) shall have effect as if for the words from "foundation", in the first place where it occurs, to "1998)" there were substituted "or grant-maintained school"'.—[Mr. Hoon.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      THE DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES
      Amendments made: No. 51, in page 47, line 13, after 'where' insert 'at that time'.
      No. 52, in page 47, line 15, leave out
      'information contained in the data is'
      and insert 'data are'.
      No. 53, in page 47, line 16, leave out
      'information contained in the data is'
      and insert 'data are'.—[Mr. George Howarth.]
      Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 48, line 40, at end insert—
      '9A. The data controller must take reasonable steps to ensure that any computer system used in processing the personal data is capable of dealing accurately with dates later than 31st December 1999.'.
      The amendment is a response to the situation facing many computer systems in Britain, and even more so world wide, on the failure to recognise the year 2000, which the Prime Minister has dubbed the millennium bug. It seeks to introduce a statutory obligation on data controllers to ensure that computer systems are millennium compliant, thus ensuring that the personal data that they contain are fully protected from any problems arising from the century date change and the year 2000 being a leap year. [Laughter.] I do not know why that is funny, but no doubt the Minister will enlighten me when he replies.
      I hope that the House knows what I am talking about. This is an issue to which I have drawn attention and about which I have warned on several occasions since my initial question to the then Prime Minister in December 1995, following which I introduced an Adjournment debate and have since introduced two private Member's Bills on the issue.
      Mr. White: The hon. Gentleman will know that a number of dates in 1999, including 31 December 1999,
      610
      may cause problems to certain computers. Why does not the amendment cover all the problem rather than just part of it?
      Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is obviously an expert on the issue, so he will know that for computer systems to be millennium compliant they will also take account of the problems anticipated before the turn of the century.
      The office of the Data Protection Registrar has produced a two-page paper entitled "The Millennium Bomb" which states that there are two problems whenever a two-digit year, represented as 99, changes to 00. It says that personal data may be interpreted as relating to 1900 rather than 2000—that is, the date is out by 100 years—and that the year 2000 is a leap years which is not usually the case for a centenary year.
      If computer systems are not millennium compliant, a number of basic data protection issues emerge. Inaccurate personal data may be processed. Obviously, therefore, the provisions of the Bill that relate to accuracy—the fourth principle—and those relating to compensation for damage caused through the use of inaccurate personal data, come into play. There may be unfair processing. If the processing is date dependent—for example, age-dependent calculations—it may give inaccurate results and lead to the deletion of personal data before the planned retention time has expired.
      Such eventualities would appear to breach the first principle in the Bill—providing for personal data to be processed fairly. It can result in the irretrievable loss of data, destroyed prematurely, as well as circumstances in which personal data are lost temporarily—for example, personal data that are unavailable for processing while the problem is being fixed. That appears to breach the seventh principle, relating to the loss, destruction of or damage to personal data.
      Many more concerns were drawn to the attention of the Science and Technology Select Committee during its investigation of this issue, on which it reported to the House on 7 April. The report was called, "The Year 2000—Computer Compliance".
      The Minister may argue that my amendment is unnecessary.
      Mr. Hoon: Very good.
      Mr. Atkinson: It appears that I have anticipated the Minister. He may argue that because the seventh principle requires:
      "Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data."
      I hope that he does not use that defence, which would be an inadequate response to a unique issue relating to computer systems and the data that they process and the protection of that data for which the Bill provides. Nor would it reflect the Government's clear warnings that the problem is serious and must be addressed if we are to avoid serious difficulties.

      611
      As the need for computer systems to be millennium compliant is so obvious and serious, it should be mentioned in as many words in the legislation. That is why I propose a new paragraph in schedule 1 which states:
      "The data controller must take reasonable steps to ensure that any computer system used in processing the personal data is capable of dealing accurately with dates later than 31st December 1999."
      I hope that the Government will have the foresight to accept my amendment.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Hoon: The amendment raises an issue of great topicality. The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for allowing us to have this brief debate on the data protection implications of the year 2000 problem. He is worried that there may be a risk to personal data processed in computer systems that have not been not programmed to cope properly with the change of date at the end of the millennium. If the problem is as serious as he warns, there could be a risk of corruption of data held on computer systems.
      The hon. Gentleman invites the House to amend the Bill expressly to deal with that risk. As he anticipated, however, the Government do not believe that such an amendment is appropriate. We believe that the seventh data protection principle and paragraph 9 of part II of schedule 1, already make adequate provision. They ensure that the data controller must take appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure the required level of security. The requisite level has to be appropriate to the harm that might result from, among other things, accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data. That appears to cover the entire range of eventualities that might occur to personal data as a consequence of some failure of a computer system because of the year 2000 problem.
      Problems of this sort could presumably occur for reasons other than the ending of the millennium. The formulation in paragraph 9 is intended to cover the unfortunate consequences that might occur from any failure of a computer system, whether or not it occurs as a consequence of the year 2000 problem. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that his amendment is unnecessary and will feel able to withdraw it.
      Mr. David Atkinson: I am disappointed that the Government have not recognised the value of my amendment and surprised at the flippant way in which the Minister responded. I am surprised because of the prominence that the Government are trying to give the issue, especially since the Prime Minister's speech on 30 March warning of the consequences to the nation if we do not get it right. I am especially surprised because the Minister has been aware of the issue for longer than any other Minister because he was Labour's spokesman on it before Labour became the Government on 1 May last year.
      If computer systems are not millennium compliant, there will be problems. The privacy of information contained in computer systems will be at risk if they crash because they are not millennium compliant. That is something which few people realise. It appears from what the Minister has said that he and the Government have not yet grasped the issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
      612
      By ignoring the opportunity that my amendment provides, the Government have missed a valuable opportunity. They are showing amazing complacency on the issue. I appreciate that my amendment was tabled only early this week, so perhaps Ministers have not given serious thought to this aspect of the Bill. I hope that the Government will give my proposal further thought in the other place.
      I clearly have not persuaded the Government, but I hope that they will give it further thought. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 54, in page 48, line 42, leave out 'staff and insert 'employees'.—[Mr. Hoon.]

    Schedule 3

      CONDITIONS RELEVANT FOR PURPOSES OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLE: PROCESSING OF SENSITIVE PERSONAL DATA
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 51, line 7, at end insert—
      '4A. The information contained in the personal data has been obtained by the canvassing of data subjects by registered political parties.'.
      It may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to learn that the Bill would make the processing of personal data obtained from political canvassing illegal. There are some of us who think that if all political canvassing were banned, it would save us an awful lot of toil and sweat at election time, but in reality—the Under-Secretary and I have discussed the matter—we appreciate and recognise that it is important that the problem that the Bill presents is tackled.
      I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who first drew attention to the matter when we were considering our response to the Bill. As a former chairman of the Conservative party, he understands and appreciates the importance of electoral law and of ensuring that the data protection legislation does not unnecessarily restrict or prohibit proper canvassing of political opinion by political parties.
      When we discussed the matter in Committee, the Minister acknowledged that there was a problem, and agreed to do something about it. We have two choices. Our preferred route is to put something in the Bill, and to do it now. That is what amendment No. 10 would do. It is entirely in keeping with the other provisions in schedule 3. That would leave the matter beyond doubt. The alternative is to do what the Minister said that he would do in Committee—use one of the Secretary of State's order-making powers within the Bill to exempt the processing of data from political canvassing.
      The problem that the House must ask the Minister to address tonight—it is a serious point—is whether any order-making power will be introduced after the Bill receives Royal Assent and while the transitional provisions that introduce the various clauses that give rise to the difficulty are in force. In other words, if we take the order-making power route, can we be certain that there will not be a period during which processing of data obtained from political canvassing will be illegal? It is a straight question that we ask the Minister. I think that I know what his preference is, but he understands that this

      613
      is a serious problem. It would have been wrong of us not to draw the House's attention to the problem. It is all very well discussing a matter such as this in Committee, but, unless it is debated on the Floor of the House, colleagues might not be aware of how serious the problem is.
      I ask the Minister, in all fairness, whether he can give us a categorical assurance that the provisions relating to sensitive data, such as political opinions, membership of trade unions, religious beliefs and so on, to the processing of which people must give explicit consent—clearly, we cannot take an answer to the question "How are you going to vote?" as explicit consent—will not come into force until the Government introduce an order to tackle that serious problem.
      Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raises an important subject. It is not a partisan issue, but one of which all of us in the House have an understanding and in which all of us have a vested interest. We have to get the process right if we are to be able to conduct our politics properly in future.
      Article 8 of the directive requires member states to establish a special regime for the processing of what the directive defines as sensitive personal data, which includes information about an individual's political opinion. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not deal in any detail with the amendment, because he has referred to the approach that we undertook in Committee to adopt and it would be as well if I were to give him some idea of how we intend to proceed on that basis.
      The Government's preferred option, as the hon. Gentleman rightly acknowledged, is to deal with the matter through subordinate legislation. Paragraph 10 of schedule 3 permits the Secretary of State to make an order specifying further circumstances in which sensitive personal data may be processed. When the matter was debated in Committee, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department explained that the Government intended to make an order under that provision that would allow the processing of political opinions data collected for canvassing purposes. I repeat that undertaking today.
      As I said, the amendment is not a party political issue, but one which affects all Members of the House, and the Government expect to approach the matter on a cross-party basis when bringing forward the necessary order. In response to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, I cannot say when we shall be in a position to introduce the order; however, preliminary work has been started and we hope to make swift progress. I can assure him that the restrictions on the processing of sensitive data set by the Bill will not be brought into force until the order is ready. In view of that undertaking, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel comfortable in withdrawing his amendment.
      Mr. Greenway: We should have liked a date, but the Minister has given me the assurance that I sought. The whole House will be gratified to learn that we can go trundling up and down the streets, canvassing our constituents. I suppose that I should ask the Minister whether what he promises will happen before the European elections, but I wonder how much canvassing
      614
      will be done, given that no one will have a clue whom they are voting for—but that is another story. We are grateful to the Minister and, in that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 7

      MISCELLANEOUS EXEMPTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 55, in page 60, leave out lines 13 to 19.
      No. 56, in page 60, line 26, leave out 'if' and insert 'to the extent that.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    Schedule 8

      TRANSITIONAL RELIEF
      Amendments made: No. 57, in page 61, line 22, leave out 'sections 7 and' and insert
      'section 7 (as it has effect subject to section 8) and section'.
      No. 58, in page 61, line 26, leave out 'as' and insert 'relevant'.
      No. 59, in page 61, line 31, leave out from beginning to '12A' and insert 'sections 7 and'.
      No. 60, in page 61, line 33, leave out 'section 9' and insert 'sections 8 and 9)'.
      No. 80, in page 63, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 64.
      No. 81, in page 65, line 9, at end insert—

    'PART V

      EXEMPTION FROM SECTION 22
      Processing which was already under way immediately before 24th October 1998 is not assessable processing for the purposes of section 22.'—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Mr. Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 65, line 9, at end add—

    'PART V

      CHANGE TO THE DEFINITION OF RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM AFTER 23RD OCTOBER 2007.
      20. The definition of relevant filing system in section 1(1) of this Act shall be modified so that the definition ends after the third occurrence of the word 'individuals'.
      21. Paragraph 20 shall have effect after 23rd October 2007.'.
      My amendment is about structured manual files, on which there was an important debate in the other place. Such files will not be subject to the new law, so the Bill will allow organisations such as the Economic League to flourish.
      The problem relates entirely to the private sector; there will be no problem in the public sector, because the freedom of information legislation will provide access for every individual to manual files, barring personal data. The human rights legislation, too, will minimise the files and personal information held by public bodies if they invade privacy.
      9.30 pm
      In a briefing note on manual records dated 29 January, available on her website, the Data Protection Registrar said that if the Government's approach to structured manual records was
      "the correct interpretation of the Directive, it is hard to see how it makes practical sense".
      It seems that that advice has been ignored.
      In another place, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Under-Secretary, said about the relevant filing systems:
      "We do not wish the definition to apply to miscellaneous collections of paper about individuals, even if the collections are assembled in a file with the individual's name…on the front".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 1998; Vol. 587, c. 467.]
      There will therefore be a legal reason for some unscrupulous private sector bodies to evade all data protection control.
      For example, a private sector organisation such as the Economic League, which kept dossiers on trade union members for the purposes of blacklisting them, will be allowed to keep whatever information it likes, however inaccurate or irrelevant it is, and to disclose it to whomever it likes, so long as it keeps the information on paper and in date order. Similarly, that aspect of the Bill is a godsend to private investigators, allowing them to indulge in covert surveillance of individuals, and will encourage the use of enforced subject access. They, too, will be able to evade all data protection controls.
      The lack of data protection controls means that individuals will have no rights, and there will be unlimited disclosure to anybody of secret dossiers and files of irrelevant or inaccurate information, which may be kept for ever. In short, organisations such as the Economic League, and private investigators, will enjoy the same level of total exemption as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. It is hard to believe that that is what Ministers really intend.
      The Government have produced a convoluted definition of a relevant filing system, because they are worried about the costs to the private sector. My amendment is a compromise, telling the private sector that it has nine years to bring all personal files into the ambit of data protection controls. At least after that time, malicious or unfair use of personal data kept on manual files would cease.
      Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining the purpose of his amendment. I hope that I shall be able to reassure him about the specific examples that he has given. As hon. Members will be aware, the Data Protection Act 1984 does not apply to manual records; it is concerned only with the automated processing of personal data. However, the 1995 directive, to which the Bill gives effect, requires member states to apply their data protection laws to certain manual records. Article 2 of the directive attempts a definition of the manual records that it intends to cover. That definition is accompanied by a more detailed commentary in recitals 15 and 27.
      The definition of a "relevant filing system" in clause 1(1) is based on those provisions of the directive. The Government's purpose has been to cover all the manual records that the directive requires member states to cover, but to go no further than the directive requires. The purpose of the directive is to bring within the scope of data protection law the manual records that lend themselves to easy manipulation of the information contained in them, as computerised records do.
      616
      The Government support that approach. The greatest risk of infringement of privacy comes from manual records held in such a way that specific information about particular individuals can be easily identified and extracted. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that his example of a card index held, by the Economic League, would be covered by the Bill, because with each card there would be the possibility of identifying information about a particular individual. Such a system would be included under the Bill.
      To that extent, I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied that the Government have had regard to his concerns. Where manual records are not structured in such a way as to permit the easy manipulation of specific information, the risk of infringement of privacy is much less. The directive does not require data protection law to be applied to such records; nor does the Bill.
      My hon. Friend's amendment would extend the application of the Bill to such records; the Government do not believe that necessary or desirable. To do so would be to impose additional burdens on business and others who use manual records in circumstances in which there is little or no threat to privacy. It would put UK data controllers at a competitive disadvantage.
      I agree that the amendment would not come into force until 23 October 2007, but deferring implementation does not necessarily remove the difficulties of substance that I have identified.
      I must tell my hon. Friend that the Government cannot accept the amendment. I hope that, given my assurances, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw it.
      Mr. Cohen: I accept the Minister's assurances and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 11
      ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC RECORDS
      Amendment made: No. 61, in page 68, line 45, after 'is' insert 'a record of'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
    Schedule 12

      MODIFICATIONS OF ACT HAVING EFFECT BEFORE 24 OCTOBER 2007
      Amendments made: No. 62, in page 71, line 47, after '3' insert 'or 4'.
      No. 63, in page 72, leave out line 9.
      No. 64, in page 72, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert—

      '(a) in subsection (2) after "section 12" there is inserted—

      "(dd) section 12A,", and

      (b) in subsection (4) after "12(8)" there is inserted 12A(3)".'.

      No. 65, in page 72, line 14, leave out 'section 14' and insert 'section 14(1) to (3)'.
      No. 66, in page 72, line 14, leave out 'and 14' and insert 'and 14(1) to (3)'.
      No. 67, in page 72, line 14, at end insert—
      '4A. In section 53(1) after "12(8)" there is inserted ", 12A(3)".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    Schedule 13

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Amendments made: No. 82, in page 73, leave out lines 20 to 23.
      No. 68, in page 74, line 47, at end insert—
      '. Subsection (4)(b) of section 40 does not apply where the rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction occurred before the commencement of that section.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    Schedule 14

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 69, in page 77, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert—
      '10. Schedule 2 to the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 (loans for students) so far as that Schedule continues in force shall have effect as if the reference in paragraph 4(2) to the Data Protection Act 1984 were a reference to this Act.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]
      The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Hear, hear.
      9.36 pm
      Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on the important role he has played in the passage of the Bill. His presence was not felt in Committee or on Second Reading, but between Report and Third Reading he made a significant contribution.
      Mr. Greenway: Yes, but does he understand the Gaskin amendment?
      Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend's stalwart work on the health service shows that he has the wisdom of Solomon—so I am sure that he does.
      The House knows that the principal purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the 1995 EC data protection directive, which has the worthy aim of improving the single market by establishing a common standard of protection of the highest order for individuals. But it is not always an easy instrument to make sense of; the subject matter with which it deals is technical and complex—those who sat through the Committee can only assent to that.
      The Government have always had in mind as a target date for implementation 24 October of this year—the date by which the directive requires member states to have implemented its provisions. If, as the Government hope, the Bill reaches the statute book before the summer recess, we shall have made good progress towards meeting that target.
      The passage of the Bill is not the end of the matter, however. The Bill provides for a large amount of subordinate legislation. Some of its powers have been put in place at a fairly late stage of the Bill's progress through Parliament; many of them will need to be in place before the new data protection regime will work. We have made a start on that work at the same time as the Bill has been progressing through Parliament so as to minimise the interval between Royal Assent and commencement. Some
      618
      progress has been made, but we are not as far forward as we would have wished. With just over three months to go to the due implementation date, a great deal of work on subordinate legislation still needs to be done.
      The Government have a choice. We could rush forward in an attempt to meet the target date, which would mean no public consultation, even on important matters, and little or no opportunity for those affected to make the necessary changes to their systems.
      Mr. Soley: During the consultation period, will it be made clear to the public that they can complain about inaccurate material that appears in the press; that they have a right to see those files, subject to the conditions in the Bill; and that the press has a duty to correct inaccurate information that it holds on people in its files? It is important not only that the public know that, but that editors and owners know it.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I can confirm that we debated the matter at length and that we attach great importance to the arrangements that have been drawn up. I know that my hon. Friend has a long and distinguished history of raising such concerns.
      There is no guarantee that we would be able to meet the 24 October implementation deadline. The alternative approach, which the Government strongly prefer, is to proceed in a more considered way, carrying out public consultation, as appropriate, and allowing reasonable periods for those affected to prepare for the new regime. That means, of course, that the 24 October implementation date would no longer be a realistic target. Although that is regrettable, the Government believe that it is undesirable to rush through the next phase, at the risk of giving imperfect consideration to important matters, and possibly producing a defective regime.
      We may miss the target by a short period, but, in the Government's view, it is more important that the Bill should be properly implemented. From information available to us, it seems that a number of European partners are unlikely to meet the 24 October target, and some major countries are likely to be well behind us.
      I hope that there is as much understanding on that point as has been shown in all our debates on the substance of the Bill. On Second Reading the right hon. Member for North—West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the best way of taking forward the work of the Bill would be in a non-partisan manner. For the most part, that has been the central feature of the Bill. The Government welcome the positive and helpful spirit that representatives of all parties have contributed to our debates. I pay a particular compliment to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who throughout has been constructive in his approach. That applies also to my hon. Friends.
      I am sure that the detailed consideration and attention given to the Bill and the amendments that have been made mean that it is in good shape as it returns to the other place. I commend the Bill to the House.
      9.42 pm
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. The Bill takes the issue of data protection considerably further than the Data Protection Act 1984.

      619
      It is a complex Bill, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have dealt with it in a co-operative spirit, as the Second Reading debate promised.
      I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Cheadle (Mr. Day) for their help and support in the Standing Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who was a great source of help and encouragement to me in preparing for the Committee stage.
      I shall now introduce a less co-operative note. It ought to be a matter of concern that, notwithstanding the complex nature of the legislation, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House tonight we have dealt with an extremely large number of amendments—well in excess of 200. This evening, we agreed no fewer than 74 amendments to the Bill, which has only 75 clauses.
      The Minister says that a delay in implementation is likely. The Bill will give rise to a huge amount of subordinate legislation, which will undoubtedly have an even greater impact on organisations and individuals than some of the structural legislation that it contains. Given the choice of rushing to meet the implementation date set out in the Bill or doing it properly, I would have taken the same decision as the hon. Gentleman. I think that it should be done properly because this measure will have far-reaching implications for every commercial and voluntary organisation in this country. That is why it was so important to conduct detailed scrutiny of the Bill. I believe that that will be necessary also when the subordinate legislation comes forward. Time will tell whether everything works as intended and complies with the directive in every respect.
      I have two more points. We have dealt with the first satisfactorily, but I still have concerns about the second. When the Bill came from the other place, two issues had caused the Lords concern. The first involved the then clause 28, now clause 29, and the exemption that we discussed earlier in relation to crime, taxation and Government Departments. The Government have dealt entirely adequately with the issue raised in another place when an important subsection was deleted, and we supported in Committee the inclusion of new clause 29(4).
      The second issue of concern involved the then clause 31, which is now clause 32. That clause is unamended, so it will be difficult to amend it in another place. Notwithstanding that fact, we place on the record our lingering concern that the scheme in that clause, which deals with the important issue of journalistic, literary and artistic purposes and seeks to balance press freedom with individuals' freedom—the House debated that issue at some length during consideration of the Human Rights Bill—will not do what the Government expect it to. Time will tell who is right.
      We had this debate in Standing Committee—I see the Minister nodding. When proceedings are stayed so that individuals may seek to obtain information, rectify inaccurate data or block processing and they come up against an organisation that claims exemption for journalistic, literary or artistic purposes, it is clear that proceedings will be stayed pending a determination by the commissioner and subsequently, on appeal, by the tribunal. However, the Bill does not say that publication will necessarily be allowed to continue. My impression is
      620
      that that will happen in the majority of cases, and that is the spirit in which both sides have proceeded both in Committee and on the Floor of the House and during our earlier consideration of the Human Rights Bill.
      I believe—this is very much a personal view—that, given the scope of the exemption in clause 32, some people may seek to abuse the provisions of that clause by claiming that they are processing data because they wish to publish something that they believe to be in the public interest. That will be true in the majority of cases, but some people will seek to abuse that position. That will prompt lawyers to challenge whether the legislation says that publication must be allowed to go ahead pending determination of the concern. At that point, the Government will need to sit up and think whether they have dealt with the problem as adequately as they think they have. We could have improved that provision by amending it, but we failed to persuade the Minister of the case for so doing. I have a feeling that we shall return to the issue, perhaps in several years, and it is on the record that I am not satisfied.
      Apart from that, we have done a pretty good job of scrutinising the Bill, and I hope that those who take the trouble to read the report of our debates will find it helpful in understanding the Bill's provisions.
      9.48 pm
      Mr. Cohen: I have presented four data protection Bills to the House, and I congratulate the Government on presenting this Bill. However, I was not selected by the Whips to serve on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill because, obviously, there was great interest from other Labour Members.
      The Government have made a worthy attempt to improve data protection and to implement the European directive, although they have not been altogether successful in some aspects. Recital 10 of the directive requires that
      "'approximation' of the laws of the Member States 'must not result in any lessening of the protection they afford but must, on the contrary, seek to ensure a high level of protection in the Community'."
      A lot of the Bill achieves that higher level of protection, but several aspects fail that test. The Government have been unduly influenced—and, I think, misinformed—about the possible costs of implementing data protection in relation to the directive. In her briefing note on the Bill, the Data Protection Registrar says, in respect of the —1,892 million estimated costs, that she
      "cannot see why data controllers should have to incur increases in compliance costs of this kind".
      I think that a false figure has been put out.
      Time is short and I do not want to delay the House, so I shall run through a few items to signal where I think that there may be problems and a lessening in rights. I have already referred to the relevant filing system. On enforced subject access, the Bill provides less protection than the Police Act 1997 in respect of employers obtaining criminal conviction certificates, and they will be able to see spent and unspent convictions, bindings over and cautions against would-be employees under enforced subject access, until it is got rid of.
      On sensitive personal data, the Bill has worrying aspects. Genetic data should have been regarded as sensitive, and the confidentiality of medical records is a concern. Aspects of the Bill effectively allow for the

      621
      increasing of data processing without the patient's consent, and some of those contradict what the General Medical Council recommends. I am concerned that protection for patients, especially that associated with their consent, is not going according to what the GMC advises. Ministers should give some thought to an explanation of why they have moved away from the GMC, at least in that respect.
      The second data protection principle is weakened by being linked to a notification procedure. That was not required under the directive, and I do not know why the Government weakened that area, but I am concerned most about the exemptions. The scope of a number of exemptions has been widened, or new exemptions have been introduced. No explanation has been given, and there should have been an explanation if the current law had created any problems. It did not seem to be creating problems, so I do not know why those new exemptions have been introduced.
      There are powers in the Bill for data controllers to delay the giving of information. That proposal will not be in the freedom of information Bill, but it will be in this Bill, and it will cost a lot of money.
      The Data Protection Registrar has expressed concern about clause 59, which has been described as a "gagging clause", preventing staff from discussing cases of interest with the press. I have outlined some of the aspects of the Bill which I fear will result in a reduction in the rights of data subjects. I suspect that, in future, the European Commission may require the United Kingdom to modify the legislation to deal with some of the problems that I have mentioned.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  NON-SITTING FRIDAYS
  Ordered,
  That the Order of 19th May 1997 relating to Non-sitting Fridays be amended by leaving out 'and 10th July'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

  Emergency Contraception
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  9.55 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I should like to think of this Adjournment debate as my contribution to the 50th anniversary of the national health service.
  Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a family planning doctor and general practitioner for many years, and I saw hundreds of examples of young women who needed emergency contraception and could not obtain it. In many cases, that led to unwanted babies or abortions. The problem lies in the fact that appointments have to be made with GPs and it often takes two or three days before one can see them. Casualty departments are overcrowded and, in any case, are not appropriate places to discuss such matters. Moreover, there are fewer family planning clinics than there used to be, and women often have to wait until after the weekend before they can go to one. Thus, women often cannot get emergency contraception within the prescribed 72 hours unless they are very brave and persistent. Young teenagers, in particular, are terribly afraid of making a fuss.
  I must state at the outset that I regret the fact that there is so much sexual activity among young teenagers. Many factors are to blame, as I am sure the Minister realises. The fact that unwanted pregnancies and abortion rates are highest in areas of social deprivation will not have escaped her notice, and I know that she is already addressing the problem of sex education by trying to improve matters in schools and to increase personal responsibility among young people. I commend her for those much-needed efforts.
  Emergency contraception is not meant to be a substitute for either sex education or regular contraception. They must go hand in hand. However, it is a practical way in which to deal with the world as it is, and its wider use would prevent the high rate of abortion among young women, which must be our main priority. This country has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. Out of every 1,000 women under the age of 16, 8.5 get pregnant, and in the 16 to 19 age group, between 58 and 59 out of every 1,000 get pregnant. It simply will not do. Half to a third of those pregnancies end in abortion.
  The problem is not limited to teenagers. Many older women who are otherwise quite responsible about their sexual lives and their relationships have contraceptive accidents and need better access to emergency contraception.
  There are two forms of emergency contraception. The fitting of an intra-uterine contraceptive device, commonly known as a coil, must be done within five days. I do not intend to go into that this evening because the device must be fitted by a properly trained doctor in a clinic.
  I want to concentrate on the emergency contraceptive pill. It is a dose of oestrogen and progesterone female sex hormones, which have been used since the 1950s. Indeed, in the 1960s, when I was on the pill, I took the equivalent dose of the emergency contraceptive pill every day—21 days out of 28—and so did many women of my generation.
  Emergency contraception is a dose repeated once, after 12 hours, and it prevents pregnancy in about 90 per cent. of episodes. In most cases, its effect is to prevent the

  623
  release of the egg from the ovary. It is important for people to know that. If it is taken later in the menstrual cycle, it will prevent implantation in the wall of the uterus of the fertilised egg. It has the same effect as a coil or an intra-uterine device. It is not an abortion in any shape or form. I repeat that point: emergency contraception cannot be used to cause an abortion.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]
  Dr. Tonge: Emergency contraception cannot be used to cause an abortion. If a woman is already pregnant, emergency contraception does not work. Abortion occurs after implantation, and the emergency contraceptive pill intervenes before that stage.
  Recently, the Daily Mail ran an article claiming that I and my supporters were promoting abortion over the counter. The journalist who wrote that article should be thoroughly ashamed. We are trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Such misleading, inaccurate and unbalanced reporting will harm the very people who need most help. The press are ready to condemn single parents and unmarried mothers, and when people try to do something about the problem, they condemn them, too. Over the years, the press has been responsible for pill scares, which have caused many unwanted pregnancies and abortions. They have put women off taking the birth control pill, and now they are trying to put them off emergency contraception.
  I shall deal with some of the issues. The fear of thrombosis is often mentioned. Sixty in 100,000 women who become pregnant will get a deep-vein thrombosis. It is a little-known fact that pregnancy is quite a dangerous condition. In my pill-taking days, when women were taking the higher dose of pill, the rate of thrombosis was 30 in 100,000. With the new pills used today, the risk is even lower: 15 to 30 in 100,000. In the past 10 years, with the use of the emergency contraceptive pill, there have been very few cases of thrombosis. The levels are similar to those of the general population who are neither pregnant nor taking the pill: about 5 in 100,000. It is not a risk.
  A one-off high dose of oestrogen and progesterone carries no contra-indications, except if there is an active attack of migraine—anyone knows when that is happening. That is caused by dilation of the cerebral arteries and may be affected by oestrogen.
  Suspected pregnancy is a contra-indication simply because the method does not work after implantation of the fertilised egg. As I said, it will not cause an abortion. Experience in the past 40 years has shown that the use of the ordinary contraceptive pill does not have any adverse effects on a baby, even if the mother continues to take the pill while she is pregnant.
  A large dose of the same hormone—such as a young woman taking it two or three times in one month—would disrupt the menstrual cycle, but would not have any other effect. Indeed, if a baby swallows a whole packet of contraceptive pills—four or five times the dose of the emergency contraception—the mother is told that it may make her baby very sick, but that, apart from dealing with that, she need take no action.
  624
  The emergency contraceptive pill is safer than aspirin, paracetamol, many of the caffeine products that are available as pep pills and many drugs that are currently on sale in supermarkets and petrol stations. Indeed, one can buy contraception in the form of condoms at petrol stations, but, if a condom breaks or the method goes wrong, one cannot get a remedy anywhere in the time scale about which I am talking. I know that this is controversial, but I believe that emergency contraception available over the counter from properly trained pharmacists could prevent an abuse of the method.
  Dr. Evan Harris: In this country, we spend much time and money in training pharmacists, only to lock them away in the back of chemists' shops. Does my hon. Friend agree that advice on emergency contraception is an example of how we could use the professionalism and expertise of pharmacists—properly remunerated, I should add—to take the load off national health service clinics and casualty departments, as she suggests?
  Dr. Tonge: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, with which I whole-heartedly agree. Pharmacists often know much more than many general practitioners about drugs and their interactions. Indeed, I have often seen pharmacists save a difficult situation by correcting a prescription. So, yes, I would welcome greater use of pharmacists.
  If the emergency contraceptive pill were made available over the counter, women would have to pay for it, which I believe would, in some cases, be a positive factor. Teenagers, particularly young teenagers, would be reluctant to pay for the pills again when they found out that they could get them free from a clinic, nurse or GP. That would have the added advantage of ensuring that very young people would, on the subsequent times that they needed this method, receive adequate counselling about their sexual behaviour, contraceptive needs and sexual health, which is what we all want. However, I appreciate that that may not be possible immediately.
  A pilot scheme operating in Washington state allows for emergency contraception to be available on prescription. Under a protocol agreed by local doctors, local nurses and pharmacists may dispense the emergency contraceptive pill—they are, of course, trained to ask the right questions. The scheme has recently received the blessing of the only company in the United Kingdom that currently makes a packaged form of emergency contraception—Schering Pharmaceuticals—so there would be no difficulty in making emergency contraception available, especially in the light of the Crown review of the prescription, supply and administration of medicines.
  The proposals that I have outlined would not make young women more vulnerable. Young women are most vulnerable when they have no one to turn to. They become scared and then they do nothing—they become yet another unwanted pregnancy or abortion statistic. If emergency contraception were made more widely available from nurses and pharmacists under a protocol, young women would have people to turn to at very short notice.
  The Minister is committed to reducing the number of teenage pregnancies. I believe that my proposals, combined with her commendable efforts on sex education

  625
  for young people, would go a long way towards that commitment. I apologise for this list, but my colleagues in the House and in the medical profession, and I are backed by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Family Planning Association—to which I owe a great debt, as it trained me in this field and it was one of the original organisations to promote family planning—and especially the Birth Control Trust, which I thank very much for its work on this matter. We all want to know how the Government intend to proceed.
  10.8 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) for raising this important issue. I pay tribute to her, and to other hon. Members who have worked so hard—particularly in recent weeks—to focus public attention on it. The question of ease of access to emergency contraception is an essential part of broader family planning provision.
  The hon. Lady made very clear the case for accessible emergency contraception. Emergency contraception is precisely that: contraception to be used in an emergency, possibly when the regular form of contraception fails. As the hon. Lady rightly said, without it many women may live in fear of an unwanted pregnancy, and may be forced into seeking an abortion. Abortion is, of course, a last resort, but too many women in Britain today resort to it because contraception has failed. In 1997, 170,000 abortions were carried out, the majority for women in their 20s.
  Let us look briefly at the facts about emergency contraception. It is provided free as part of national health service comprehensive family planning services. Although we are talking about a pill on this occasion, it is important to remember—as the hon. Lady pointed out—that emergency contraception is available in two forms, the copper intra-uterine device and hormonal emergency contraception.
  Hormonal emergency contraception, on which I want to concentrate, was first licensed in the United Kingdom in 1984. It is effective for up to 72 hours after unprotected sex—a fact which I still do not think is lodged sufficiently in the minds of many women, especially young women. It prevents a fertilised egg from being implanted in the uterus, or, alternatively, suppresses ovulation. As the hon. Lady said, it is very effective: more than 95 per cent. of women who take emergency contraceptive pills do not become pregnant. However, it is intended to be used only occasionally, and is not a form of long-term birth control. As the hon. Lady said—I want to underline this—neither is it a form of abortion.
  From the data that we have on prescription items, we know that more emergency contraception is being used. As I said in a parliamentary written answer to the hon. Lady, the number of prescription items increased from just under 400,000 in 1992–93 to well over 700,000 in 1996–97.
  Emergency contraception is safe and effective, with few contra-indications. Safety and correct use will remain paramount, whatever changes are made in the future to
  626
  ease accessibility. A study published today suggests that making emergency contraception more easily obtainable does no harm, that women are not more likely to use emergency contraception repeatedly and that the rate of unwanted pregnancies may be reduced.
  The hon. Lady is interested in exploring further whether hormonal emergency contraception might be made more widely available through different routes. I think that we can do much more both to increase information for women and to improve access through existing services.
  The current position is that emergency contraception is classified as a prescription-only medicine under both European Community and United Kingdom law. Medicines are so classified if they are likely to present a danger, either directly or indirectly, even when used correctly, if taken without medical supervision; or if they are frequently used incorrectly and, as a result, are likely to present a direct or indirect danger to human health.
  Dr. Tonge: Does not the Minister accept, having listened to the experts and to what I said tonight, that the emergency contraceptive pill does not fit into either of those categories?
  Ms Jowell: Those are the terms on which the emergency contraceptive pill is currently licensed. That judgment is made by the licensing authority. There is a well-established process for changing the legal classification from prescription-only to pharmacy availability.
  The first stage is that the holder of the marketing authorisation, being satisfied of safety in use, proposes the change. My understanding is that only one company is licensed to produce the emergency contraceptive to which the hon. Lady referred. The proposal can come from other sources, and has on occasion come from professional bodies.
  It is important to stress that third parties, whoever they may be, must still have detailed information on safety in use, and the manufacturer must be involved in producing patient information for medicine use in the absence of medical supervision.
  The second hurdle is the assessment of the safety of a change in classification, which involves the assessment of available scientific and epidemiological evidence by the Medicines Control Agency; careful consideration of the medicine's risks and benefits; rigorous evaluation of the evidence on safety in use; and an evaluation of the direct danger of the medicine based on an assessment of the seriousness, severity or frequency of adverse reactions.
  There is also an evaluation of any indirect danger to health; for example, wider public health issues, such as a possible increase in sexually transmitted diseases if increased use of the emergency pill leads to decreased reliance on barrier methods, must be considered.
  The third stage is for the Committee on Safety of Medicines to consider every application for deregulation from prescription-only status to pharmacy availability. The committee examines again the evidence of safety in use in relation to criteria for prescription-only status and advises on the product's risks and benefits in the context of its proposed over-the-counter availability.
  The penultimate stage is public consultation. If the committee is satisfied that the risks and benefits are acceptable, on the basis of the available evidence, a period

  627
  of public consultation follows. Consultation makes possible a wider debate on the social, ethical and moral aspects, as well as the scientific and broader public health issues. The responses are then considered by the Medicines Commission. Only after those four stages have been completed does the Medicines Commission advise Ministers on the proposal to amend the prescription-only medicines order. Ministers then make a decision. Emergency contraception is no exception to that process.
  Another route, to which the hon. Lady alluded, is the supply and administration of medicines under group protocols. As she knows, the Crown review into the prescribing, supply and administration of medicines has been considering related issues. The full review is drawing towards a conclusion, and Ministers expect its second report in the summer. The first report, setting out recommendations for the supply and administration of medicines under group protocols, was published towards the end of April, and recommended that the majority of patients should continue to receive medicines on an individual basis, but that group protocols should be used in certain limited situations.
  The provision of contraception as part of a comprehensive family planning service could be one such area. Highly qualified nurses are working in family planning, and some of them are currently working effectively under group protocols. I believe that the first report of the Crown review forms a solid basis for setting standards to develop good practice in that area of care. We wish to consider the implications carefully before consulting further on detailed proposals, and we hope to undertake consultation in the next few weeks.
  The hon. Lady referred to the scheme being conducted in Washington state in the north-west of the United States of America. Pharmacists are participating in a pilot study in which a collaborative agreement between pharmacists and a prescribing clinician enables the pharmacists to provide the emergency contraceptive pill directly to women according to an agreed protocol. That is a new project in its early days of piloting, and I understand that it will be subject to proper evaluation. We certainly want to consider carefully the implications for the United Kingdom of that type of experiment.
  I want to deal with some of the broader aspects. What I have said will make it clear to the hon. Lady that the immediate change is not in prospect. It is essential, however, to consider how we can make emergency contraception more accessible to women who need it. As the hon. Lady said, for the emergency contraceptive pill to be effective, it must be readily accessible within the 72-hour window of opportunity. It can be prescribed by any general practitioner who provides contraceptive services, and it is available at any family planning clinic, most genito-urinary medicine or sexual health clinics and some accident and emergency departments. Young people can also go to young person's clinics or Brook advisory centres. It is not acceptable for women to have difficulty making appointments with their GPs, to find family planning clinics closed or to be turned away from accident and emergency departments. Health authorities should ensure that that does not happen.
  No matter how accessible the contraception is, the other side of the coin is information. People must be aware of what emergency contraception offers. Women need timely information about the accessibility of emergency contraception, and about how it works and when it should
  628
  be taken. Raising awareness has been a key Government priority. The Department of Health recently funded an awareness-raising campaign by the Health Education Authority, which stressed that the emergency contraceptive pill can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex, and that the other form of emergency contraception—the copper intra-uterine device—can be inserted after up to five days. I am heartened by much of the media coverage that has sought to dispel the myth of the morning-after pill. The hon. Lady referred to what she considered to be irresponsible reporting, but we need to recognise that the media can be important allies for us, particularly in getting the message across to vulnerable young women.
  Just lately, some responsible reports referred to the 72-hour time interval, which remains insufficiently understood. More broadly, it is important to get across to as many women as possible further information about exactly how emergency contraception works.
  The contraceptive education service run by the Family Planning Association, with Department of Health funding, has published a detailed leaflet for women and their partners on both forms of emergency contraception. As part of contraceptive awareness week, it has launched an information pack on emergency contraception for health promotion units. The service provides answers to questions from women and their partners across a wide range of contraceptive issues, including emergency contraception, and the CES helpline provides information on the location of family planning clinics.
  In summary, therefore, whether or not we move in time to a greater accessibility by increasing the places from which women can obtain the emergency contraceptive pill, certain principles will continue to apply. First, safety and correct use will remain paramount. Secondly, women and their partners have the right to a confidentially provided service, and ways will need to be found to ensure that that is honoured, if the pattern of access changes. They also have the right to detailed advice and support in making decisions on their long-term contraception plans, so appropriate mechanisms for referral to a family planning doctor or nurse will need to be firmly in place. Information and accessibility are two key elements which we need to apply to making contraceptive advice more widely available.
  The hon. Lady rightly referred to the Government's work on reducing teenage pregnancies. She will know better than most hon. Members that that is a highly complex issue, which cannot rely on one single remedy. It is important that the provision of contraception for young women who she, I and other hon. Members would agree have become sexually active before their time must be in the context of advice, support and counselling.
  Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister agree that that young, vulnerable group of women are reluctant to seek help because they have to go to a GP in whom they may not have confidence, because he is known in the area, or to a local casualty department or a local family planning clinic, where they may be known and told off or castigated for what they have done?
  Ms Jowell: In many cases, that is so, particularly where young women live in small communities. They are concerned that if they go to the doctor, they may be

  629
  spotted by their auntie or another member of their family in the waiting room. That is a deterrent. Although we recognise that many GPs handle the issue with great sensitivity and care, we need to reflect carefully on the particular needs of young women, in providing not just
  630
  advice on contraception and sex but the opportunity to talk about sex and contraception in the context of relationships. Later this year, we shall introduce specific proposals for reducing teenage pregnancy, of which these proposals will form part.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what quantity of beef has been exported from Northern Ireland since the lifting of the beef export ban in respect of Northern Ireland; and how much of this was in carcase form. [47389]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Only one consignment of beef comprising 45 cartons of boneless beef weighing 1,108.7 kgs has been exported from Northern Ireland since the lifting of the beef export ban. Exports of bone-in beef remains banned and therefore no exports in carcase form have taken place.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what quantities of(a) sides of beef, (b) tongues, (c) cheeks and (d) tails have been exported since the lifting of the beef export ban in Northern Ireland. [47390]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There have been no exports of beef sides, tongues, cheeks or tails since the lifting of the beef export ban in Northern Ireland.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the latest available estimates of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland together, in each case, with the equivalent electoral registration figures expressed as a percentage of these figures. [47711]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Mid-year estimates of the population of Northern Ireland broken down by age are available for Health Board areas only. Consequently, the population counts for parliamentary constituencies shown in the tables are taken from the 1991 Census of Population.

  Northern Ireland parliamentary constituency boundaries were redrawn in 1996. Table 1 details the population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent. of the 16 year old population at the time of the 1991 Census of Population in each of the current parliamentary constituencies. Table 2 details the most up-to-date information on their respective electorates. Information on the number of registered voters in each constituency prior to 1996 is not available.
  226
  Therefore, because the two sets of data shown here relate to different time points, it is not appropriate to determine the ratio of the number of registered voters to the population count.

  Table 1: Post-1996 parliamentary constituencies, ordered by population

  Parliamentary constituency (post-1996)

  1991 census population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent. of population aged 16 years

  Mid Ulster

  55,895

  East Antrim

  56,103

  West Tyrone

  57,160

  East Londonderry

  58,609

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  61,566

  Belfast West

  61,647

  North Down

  61,846

  Belfast East

  64,638

  Strangford

  64,641

  Foyle

  64,643

  Newry and Armagh

  68,014

  South Down

  68,368

  Upper Bann

  68,424

  Belfast North

  68,542

  South Antrim

  68,570

  Belfast South

  69,110

  Lagan Valley

  69,787

  North Antrim

  71,097

  Northern Ireland

  1,158,660

  Table 2: Post-1996 parliamentary constituencies, ordered by number of electors

  Parliamentary constituency (post-1996)

  1998 registered electors

  West Tyrone

  59,709

  East Antrim

  59,721

  East Londonderry

  59,843

  Mid Ulster

  60,657

  Belfast East

  60,852

  Belfast West

  61,079

  Belfast South

  61,404

  Belfast North

  62,933

  North Down

  63,349

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  65,996

  Foyle

  69,533

  South Antrim

  69,971

  Upper Bann

  71,369

  Strangford

  71,395

  South Down

  71,726

  Lagan Valley

  72,205

  Newry and Armagh

  72,351

  North Antrim

  73,941

  Northern Ireland

  1,188,034

  Rate Collection Agency
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Rate Collection Agency in 1998–99. [48962]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1998–99, the following performance targets have been set for RCA.
  Collection and Recovery of Rates

  To collect 97.50 per cent. of the gross domestic collectable rate, (excluding late assessments) by 31 March 1998.

  To collect 98.75 per cent. of the gross non-domestic collectable rate (excluding late assessments) by 31 March 1998.

  227

  To achieve a reduction of 1 per cent. in the real value of the unit costs of collecting rates per hereditament.

  To generate refunds to 98 per cent. of ratepayers so entitled within 14 days of credits being identified.

  Housing Benefit Administration

  To process by 31 March 1999,96 per cent. of applications for the incoming year received from Housing Benefit recipients before 15 March 1999.

  To achieve a reduction of 1 per cent. in the real value of unit costs or processing Housing Benefit cases.

  To assess 97 per cent. of Housing Benefit claims free of error.

  Statistics and Research Agency
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency in 1998–99. [49068]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For 1998–99 the following key performance targets have been set for the Agency:

  95–100 per cent. of key Government users of the Agency surveyed rating its overall service as satisfactory or better, with 50–55 per cent. rating it as very satisfactory.

  95–100 per cent. of registered non-Government users of the Agency surveyed rating its overall service as satisfactory or better, with 55–60 per cent. rating it as very satisfactory.

  To produce no fewer than 52 statistical publications and 15 ad hoc research publications during 1998–99.

  95–100 per cent. of NISRA readers rating key publications as satisfactory or better, with 40–45 per cent. rating them as very satisfactory.

  To process 98 per cent. of postal and personal applications for General Register Office certificates within 8 and 3 working days respectively.

  To reduce by 2 per cent. the unit cost of producing civil registration certificates.

  To achieve a minimum of 3 per cent. efficiency saving.

  Full details are set out in the Agency's Corporate and Business Plans, copies of which will be placed in the library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Officers of the House
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will list the officers of the House who are provided with residential accommodation. [48020]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  Certain officers of the House are required to reside in the precincts when the House is in session. It is not the practice to give details of the conditions of service of individual staff.

  Divisions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council how many divisions in the House have occurred before 8 pm since 1 May 1997. [48451]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  129 of the 317 divisions held between 1 May 1997 and 29 June 1998 occurred before 8 pm.

SCOTLAND

  Hypothermia
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the years 1986 to 1996 inclusive the number of deaths in Scotland as a result of hypothermia. [47970]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Deaths with any mention of hypothermia on the death certificate, Scotland, 1986–1996

  Year

  Number

  1986

  208

  1987

  153

  1988

  138

  1989

  150

  1990

  136

  1991

  99

  1992

  115

  1993

  141

  1994

  136

  1995

  123

  1996

  125

  Carbeth Hutters
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the decision by Sheriff Penman at Stirling on 23 June in the case of Graham v Sommerville, what plans he has to reform the law on landlord and tenant regarding the protection afforded by the Rent Acts to the Carbeth Hutters in respect of (a) security of tenure and (b) protection against uncontrolled rises in rent or other charges levied by the landlord. [48072]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: My right hon. Friend has noted with concern recent developments affecting the Carbeth Hutters. However, any proposals for new legislation would need to be considered carefully to ensure that the possible wider implications were fully addressed—including, for example, for holiday accommodation, for the management of camping and caravan sites, and for the application of existing legislation to privately rented houses occupied as a main residence.

  The Government are therefore not at present in a position to amend the law on landlord and tenant in these respects, although it would of course be open to the Scottish Parliament to consider any proposals for new legislation in due course.

  Borders Economy
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further measures he will take to develop the economy in the Scottish Borders. [49133]

  Mr. Wilson
  In recognition of the problems being experienced in the Scottish Borders economy, most recently with the redundancy announcement by Dawson International this week, I have today announced a package of support to help the economy diversify and modernise. This includes an additional £1 million for Scottish Borders Enterprise's budget this year, a rise of 12 per cent.; the
  229
  setting up of a new Rural Inward Investment Team within Locate in Scotland to help attract investment to areas like the Borders; a commitment to consider providing the Borders with a reallocation of unused EC structural funds; a commitment to best endeavours to find additional funding if Scottish Borders Enterprise can bring forward further viable projects; and a commitment to keep discussions with Dawsons open and to assist them in their redevelopment. These measures are in addition to on-going assistance to the Borders, including the recent designation of Hawick as a Property Employment Support Programme (PESP) area, which allows greater flexibility to the local enterprise company to assist property projects in areas of social deprivation. The recently announced expansion of the telecoms infrastructure in the Borders will also provide an important selling point for the area.

  In response to the call for a South of Scotland Convention I will bring together in the near future the elected members and other relevant bodies to meet on a one-off basis to discuss further the area's economy and needs. The future requirement for such a forum must however be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  University Students
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of students at Scottish universities whose permanent place of residence is in Hertfordshire. [48503]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 1996–97 there were 459 students at Scottish higher education institution whose permanent place of residence is in Hertfordshire.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which individuals and institutions provided the information and analysis underlying his decision to reprocess existing nuclear materials at Dounreay as part of the decommissioning programme; and if he will place copies of each of the documents provided to his Department on that subject in the Library. [45451]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government announced on 5 June 1998, Official Report, columns 385–86, that Dounreay would accept no new contracts for commercial reprocessing, and that UKAEA was planning to complete reprocessing of its own liabilities and of material subject to existing commercial contracts. This announcement was informed by advice from the UKAEA. I have therefore written to the Chairman of the UKAEA requesting him to prepare the information requested and to seek the agreement of UKAEA's committed customers for its publication. His reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Reprocessing at Dounreay has now been stopped pending the outcome of the safety audit of the site by the Health and Safety Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Decisions on completing the reprocessing of existing commitments will be made in the light of the outcome of that audit and, in particular, on the basis of UKAEA's recommendations of what, if any, new investments may be required.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the estimated tonnages of coal extractable by opencasting from(a) contaminated land, (b) derelict land, (c) other brownfield sites and (d) greenfield sites. [48260]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not held centrally.

  Civil Aviation Authority Pensioners
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements he proposes to protect pension benefits of existing CAA pensioners following privatisation of the National Air Traffic Services. [48061]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Details of the proposed public/private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd. are still to be determined. The Government and the CAA will give very careful consideration to future pensions arrangements, and the details will be announced as soon as possible.

  Air Misses
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many near misses have been recorded over Surrey by aircraft departing from or arriving at(a) Gatwick and (b) Heathrow in each of the last 10 years. [47992]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information is not available as requested, but National Air Traffic Services Limited, which is responsible for air traffic services at Gatwick and Heathrow, has been able to provide figures for the number of airprox ("near miss") reports filed by air traffic controllers and pilots in each of the last 10 years within a radius of 25 miles of the village of Effingham in the centre of Surrey, as follows:

  Year

  Airprox P1

  Gatwick Airprox C2

  Airprox P1

  Heathrow Airprox C2

  1988

  4

  n/a

  2

  n/a

  1989

  2

  n/a

  0

  n/a

  1990

  32

  1

  33

  0

  1991

  0

  33

  33

  34

  1992

  31

  2

  2

  2

  1993

  0

  1

  2

  2

  1994

  0

  0

  4

  3

  1995

  0

  0

  6

  1

  1996

  3

  2

  4

  0

  1997

  33

  32

  34

  31

  1Airprox P are incidents reported by pilots and Airprox C are incidents reported by air traffic controllers

  2Airprox C data are available only from 1 January 1990

  2Indicates double counting where incidents involved both Heathrow and Gatwick Traffic

  Note:

  No breakdown is available as to which of the above airproxes were assessed by the independent panels as being risk-bearing

  Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many
  231
  (a) HGV occupants, (b) LGV occupants, (c) car occupants, (d) motorcyclists and (e) pedal cyclists were killed, seriously injured and slightly injured in impacts where the first point of impact of their vehicle was (i) the front, (ii) the rear, (iii) the nearside, (iv) the offside and (v) unknown for the latest year for which data are available. [48155]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Casualties by road user type and severity by first point of impact: GB: 1997

  Severity of casualty

  First point of impact

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All casualties

  HGV occupant

  Front

  32

  329

  1,528

  1,889

  Back

  2

  39

  332

  373

  Offside

  6

  65

  408

  479

  Nearside

  4

  65

  359

  428

  Unknown

  0

  2

  11

  13

  Total1

  45

  528

  2,728

  3,301

  LGV occupant

  Front

  40

  578

  3,382

  4,000

  Back

  2

  75

  1,512

  1,589

  Offside

  13

  96

  842

  951

  Nearside

  8

  78

  626

  712

  Unknown

  0

  3

  55

  58

  Total1

  64

  864

  6,544

  7,742

  Car occupant

  Front

  1,057

  14,078

  93,771

  108,906

  Back

  72

  1,857

  51,455

  53,384

  Offside

  360

  2,831

  22,976

  26,167

  Nearside

  278

  2,126

  16,735

  19,139

  Unknown

  6

  198

  1,177

  1,381

  Total1

  1,795

  21,394

  188,203

  211,392

  Motorcyclists2

  Front

  383

  3,912

  10,456

  14,751

  Back

  12

  169

  1,169

  1,350

  Offside

  50

  761

  2,300

  3,111

  Nearside

  49

  810

  2,771

  3,630

  Unknown

  6

  83

  385

  474

  Total1

  509

  5,934

  17,977

  24,420

  Pedal cyclists

  Front

  53

  1,823

  11,790

  13,666

  Back

  51

  406

  2,597

  3,054

  Offside

  48

  589

  3,178

  3,815

  Nearside

  22

  362

  2,348

  2,732

  Unknown

  6

  79

  405

  490

  Total1

  183

  3,405

  20,997

  24,585

  1Total includes casualties in vehicles which did not impact

  2Includes riders and passengers of all two-wheeled motor vehicles

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the introduction of 44 tonne lorries on rail freight. [47974]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The issue of the possible wider use of 44 tonne, 6 axle lorries, including the possible effects on rail freight, will be discussed in the forthcoming White Paper on integrated transport.

  Single Vehicle Approval Scheme
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry on 19 June 1998,Official Report, column 676, on the review of the single vehicle approval scheme, if enforcement of the Motor Vehicles (Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 will be suspended pending the outcome of the review; and if he will make a statement. [48170]

  Dr. Strang
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: No. The Motor Vehicles (Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 came into force on 30 April. The forthcoming review will examine how to permit access to SVA without undermining EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval—in particular, changes to the current Very Low Volume limits of 50 vehicles a year and 100 over 5 years. There is no question of lowering any of the existing SVA safety and environmental standards.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to give effect to the Rail Regulator's statement that diversification by Railtrack beyond its core regulated activity of managing the domestic rail network would be properly ring-fenced and would have no impact on access charges levied by Railtrack plc. [48263]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Rail Regulator has stated that he wants to ensure that the licensed activities of Railtrack PLC are ringfenced and that the other activities of Railtrack Group PLC will not have any impact on the level of access charges that he will set as a result of his current periodic review. The Government support this aim and will consider whether any further action is necessary.

  Cycle Lanes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average cost of the provision of one mile of cycle lane. [48326]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Average costs are not available, but since cycle lanes use the existing carriageway of a road and are identified by markings and signs, costs are not high. The limitation in providing more cycle lanes on the carriageway will often be lack of sufficient roadspace.

  We are encouraging all local authorities to improve facilities for cyclists, including more cycle lanes on the carriageway.

  Freight
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many billion tonne-kilometres of freight are moved annually within the United Kingdom. [48273]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: 241 billion tonne-kilometres of freight were moved within the United Kingdom in 1996, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Roads
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of incidents of road congestion are related to road maintenance. [48278]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: Recent research commissioned by the Highways Agency suggested that, during the study period, roadworks were responsible for approximately 15 per cent. of incidents of congestion. This project examined the causes of congestion on most of the motorway network and a small number of all-purpose trunk roads.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many kilometres of(a) motorways, (b) trunk roads and (c) major local authority roads have less than four years life remaining and require urgent maintenance. [48280]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: Details of surveys of the residual life of motorways, trunk roads and principal local authority roads are published in the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey. The report on the 1997 survey gives information about residual life of roads for England and Wales:

  Road class

  Motorway

  Trunk

  Principal

  Lane kms surveyed

  4,538

  13,259

  32,818

  Residual life years:

  Less than 0

  5.7

  8.1

  15.4

  0–4

  9.4

  6.9

  9.3

  5–9

  11.9

  9.0

  9.2

  10–14

  12.7

  10.4

  8.3

  15–19

  22.5

  14.7

  10.1

  Greater than 19

  37.8

  50.9

  47.7

  All

  100

  100

  100

  Coverage of eligible network percentages

  99

  85

  59

  Most of these roads do not require immediate maintenance. Residual life is a projection of the structural condition of the road on a statistical basis. Below zero residual life does not indicate that the road is no longer serviceable.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many kilometres of non-motorway roads fall under central Government control. [48279]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: Statistics for 1996 show that in Great Britain 12,359 kilometres of non-motorway roads fall under central Government control.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to charge utilities for their occupation of the highway during roadworks. [48555]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None at present, though the issue is kept under review.

  Fuel Consumption
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the average fuel consumption figures of a new car in(a) 1984 and (b) 1998. [48271]

  Dr. Strang
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: The average new car's fuel consumption was 37.11mpg in 1984 and 37.97mpg in 1996, which is the latest year for which data are available. These figures underline the need for further improvement in the fuel consumption in new cars, though recent improvements are encouraging.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish and place in the Library a copy of the report of the Working Group of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee into the needs of disabled people in the context of proposals to discourage increasing unnecessary car use. [48507]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee presented a report on Restrictions on Personal Vehicular Transport to me on 6 May. I understand that the Committee will be meeting in August to decide whether or not to publish the report. If the report is published I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the recent decision by One-2-One to stop using fast-track planning procedures under the General Permitted Development Order for the development of new masts; and if he will require all telecommunications operators to submit full planning applications for all proposed new masts. [48056]

  Mr. Caborn
  Local planning authorities have the opportunity to exercise control over the siting of individual mast developments, whether that be through the consideration of a full planning application or the determination of a full planning application or the determination of a "prior approval" application under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. The permission for telecommunications masts granted by the Order is subject to certain conditions, one of which is that the developer should make a "prior approval" application to the local planning authority. The developer may accept the conditions and take advantage of the Order permission. If, however, the developer is not prepared to accept a condition, the Order permission is self-evidently not available, and it is open to him to make a planning application to the local planning authority in the ordinary way. Currently we have no plans to make all mast development subject to a full planning application.

  Local Authority Transport Schemes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much central Government money was used in each of the
  235
  past five years to help local authorities develop PFI deals for (a) road schemes and (b) other transport services; and if he will list the schemes. [48914]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1993–94 a final grant payment of £13,279 was made as part of assistance given to West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority to assist with the development of a concession agreement for the West Midlands Metro line 1. Since that time no local authority has been allocated resources tied specifically to the development of a deal in the transport sector which involves private finance.

  A considerable number of authorities do, however, receive funding for local transport packages and some package resources may have been used by authorities to support their expenditure in developing PFI cases. This is most likely in the case of light rail proposals but might also occur for other kinds of infrastructure where a major development forms part of the local package strategy.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the results of the Review of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. [49069]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today published the report of the group set up to review how the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 might be strengthened. Copies have been placed in the House Library.

  The agreed report of the review group demonstrates a thorough investigation of the issues, careful analysis of possible options and puts forward proposals which are sensible and balanced. They include simpler criteria representing the landscape, historic and wildlife importance of hedgerows; and increasing the extra time for local planning authorities to consider hedgerow removal notices from six to eight weeks.

  Before these proposals can be worked up into revised draft Hedgerows Regulations, we will commission research into the group's proposed criteria defining important hedgerows. This should provide an estimate of the percentage of hedgerows they would be likely to protect. We will also reflect on their suggestion that, in the longer term, further consideration be given to altering the Environment Act 1995 so that local authorities—rather than Ministers—can determine which hedgerows in their area are important and worthy of protection.

  Packaging
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received the report of the Advisory Committee on Packaging on the Review of Packaging Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [49070]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am today placing in the Library a copy of the Advisory Committee on Packaging's Report on the operation of the Producer Responsibility (Packaging Waste) Obligations Regulations 1997.

  The Committee's principal conclusion is that adjustments to the Packaging Regulations should be kept to the minimum in view of the very short timescale for achieving the Directive targets set for 2001, the costs to business and the need to encourage investment in the
  236
  expansion of recycling and collection capacity. Sir Peter Parker's report includes specific recommendations on the PRN system: in particular, that the PRN mechanism should be more transparent to assure all parties that the funds raised are deployed effectively to increase collection and reprocessing capacity; and that the PRNs should be issued to obligated producers or their representatives only. The report recommends the development of a national packaging planning framework to give the parties involved greater confidence in planning on the achievement of the packaging waste recovery targets, and to contribute to the national Waste Strategy. The Committee also recommends that there should be mechanisms developed to promote cost pass through by the various sectors, but that, where this fails, "hardship criteria" should be established to determine where a case merited review.

  Clearly this is still a relatively early point in the operation of these Regulations which are based on an inter-sectoral industry agreement, and I am keen that the Government should continue to have the benefit of the Advisory Committee's views on such issues as may arise in this challenging period as we seek to double the UK's packaging recycling activity. I will be discussing with Sir Peter how the Committee can continue in this valuable role.

  Humber Bridge
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when decisions will be reached on the treatment of the debts of the Humber Bridge. [49132]

  Dr. Strang
  A new loan agreement between the Secretary of State and the Humber Bridge Board has been signed. In accordance with that agreement, and with effect from 1 April this year, some £62m of debts owed by the Board to the Public Works Loan Board will be written off and interest payments due on debts of £359m owed to the Secretary of State for Transport will initially be reduced to about a fifth of what they would otherwise have been.

  The agreement provides that fixed rate interest charges will be broadly aligned with current rates and that, initially, interest charges on £240m of the debt will be suspended. Over the next 16 years suspended debt will be reactivated by instalments starting with the sum of £1lm in the next financial year and, in succeeding years, by additional amounts increased by 4 per cent. per annum. All the debt owed to the Secretary of State is to be repaid within the next 40 years.

  These arrangements are to be implemented, with the approval of Parliament, through an Order under the Humber Bridge (Debts) Act 1996 which I will lay before Parliament shortly. They should not result in any increase in the real value of the tolls charged at the Humber Bridge. But they should provide the solution to the problem of the unrealistic escalation of the Humber Bridge debt that has long been promised.

  TECs and Business Links
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will establish a pilot programme in an English region under
  237
  which the operation of (a) TECs and (b) Business Links would be the responsibility of the relevant RDA; and if he will make a statement. [46950]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply to this question.

  As mentioned in the Government's response to the Education and Employment Select Committee's recent report into the relationship between TECs and the proposed Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), we consider that it would be inappropriate to introduce a project piloting alternative methods of contracting with TECs before the current review of the future role of TECs has been completed. The Government will review the situation when the review of TECs is completed.

  We are currently considering ways of ensuring that, as mentioned in the Government's White Paper on RDAs ('Building Partnerships for Prosperity'), RDAs will work closely with TECs and Business Links to make sure that their services match more closely the needs of their region and contribute to regional economic objectives.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the feasibility of off-shore wind farms. [45666]

  Mr. Battle
  An appraisal of the prospects for, and constraints on, the development of both onshore and offshore wind was published as 'An Assessment of Renewable Energy in the UK' by HMSO in 1994. Since then my Department's New and Renewable Energy Programme has supported a wide range of research projects related to wind energy and geared mainly towards onshore deployment, stimulated by successive Orders under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation. Current work, however, includes monitoring the development of the first offshore wind NFFO project at Blythe, and assessing the commercial opportunities for UK manufacturing industry within the offshore wind arena. Total DTI expenditure on wind energy projects in 1997/98 was £1.5 million.

  My current review of renewable energy, including onshore and offshore wind energy, is considering the contribution each source could make, the barriers to deployment and the measures which may be necessary to overcome them, and the need for research, development, demonstration, and dissemination. I expect to make an announcement about the Review later this year.

  Trade Statistics (Pakistan)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of(a) exports to and (b) imports from Pakistan for each of the last five years for which records are available; what are the major categories of exports and imports; and if she will make a statement. [48182]
  238
  Mrs. Roche
  The information is given in the following tables:

  UK trade with Pakistan

  £ million, current prices

  UK

  UK exports

  Total imports

  Total trade

  Goods and Services

  1992

  464

  393

  837

  1993

  499

  460

  959

  1994

  531

  511

  1,042

  1995

  556

  525

  1,081

  1996

  589

  566

  1,155

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Goods

  1992

  312

  273

  585

  1993

  330

  324

  654

  1994

  354

  360

  714

  1995

  340

  364

  704

  1996

  344

  391

  735

  1997

  269

  380

  649

  Services

  1992

  152

  120

  272

  1993

  169

  136

  305

  1994

  177

  151

  328

  1995

  216

  161

  377

  1996

  245

  175

  420

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Note:

  Figures for trade in goods are on an Overseas Trade Statistics (OTS) basis. Figures for trade in services are on a Balance of Payments (BOP) basis

  UK-Pakistan trade in goods 1997

  Main commodities traded

  £ million

  Top 5 UK exports to Pakistan

  Specialised industrial machinery

  35.2

  Power generating machinery

  25.2

  General industrial machinery

  24.0

  Medicinal and pharmaceutical products

  19.1

  Chemical materials and products, n.e.s.1

  17.8

  Top 5 UK imports from Pakistan

  Textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles, n.e.s.1

  166.6

  Articles of apparel and clothing accessories

  110.7

  Fish, crustaceans etc.

  16.4

  Power generating machinery

  15.9

  Textile fibres

  12.4

  1Not elsewhere specified within the Standard International Trade Classification

  Note:

  Figures for trade in goods are on an Overseas Trade statistics (OTS) basis

  Sources:

  United Kingdom Balance of Payments, The Pink Book, 1997, ONS Monthly review of External Trade Statistics (MRETS), ONS Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her Department's policy on the Government's target to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. by the year 2010. [46234]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government plan to publish a consultation paper on climate change this summer. This will focus on policy options for meeting our legally binding target from Kyoto, but also look at measures that
  239
  would move beyond that towards our aim of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions. We are inviting views from all sectors throughout this consultation process.

  As part of the process, we are committed to a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources. We inherited a figure of 2 per cent. renewables contribution to UK electricity supplies. This is expected to rise to 5 per cent. by about 2003. On 6 June 1997, Official Report, column 273, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, announced a review of our renewable policy of what would be necessary and practical to meet our target of 10 per cent. of UK electricity supplies from renewables by 2010. I hope to announce the results of that review shortly.

  Government Policies
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the projects undertaken by her Department since 1 May 1997 to research public reaction to(a) Government policies and (b) potential new policies; and if she will place the results of the research in the Library. [46682]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The Department has carried out the following surveys into current policies and potential new policies since 1 May 1997:

  Biotechnology Means Business Evaluation

  Business Links Baseline Tracking Study

  Competitiveness Analysis of UK Downstream Gas Industry

  Degradation of Materials in Aggressive Environments

  Design Council Evaluation and Tracking Study

  Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme (Series of ad hoc surveys)

  Evaluation of Regional Supply Network

  Evaluation of Export Market Research Scheme*

  Evaluation of Design of High Speed Machinery Programme

  Evaluation of Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme*

  Evaluation of RETEX Initiative

  Evaluation of KONVER Initiative

  Evaluation of Industry '96

  Future Market Potential for Photovoltaic Products

  Interim Evaluation of DTI's Biotechnology Means Business Initiative*

  Materials Measurement Evaluation Survey*

  Mid-term Review of BNSC Applications Demonstration Programme

  Review of European Supported Networks

  South-east Asia "Lands of Opportunity" Campaign

  Support for Overseas Trade Fairs & Seminars Study

  Survey as part of an Evaluation of OSO Support for Innovation*

  Survey of Machinery Exporters concerning Single Market Barriers to Trade*

  UK Business Potential for Virtual Reality*

  Workplace Employee Relations Survey*.

  The distinction between current and potential policies is not one the Department uses, since evaluations of current policy will shape future policy.

  Where the results of these surveys are not already in the Library of the House, arrangements are being made for them to be placed there. The only exception
  240
  is the report of the Mid-term Review of BNSC Applications Demonstration Programme, which is classified 'Commercial in Confidence'.

  Those surveys marked with an asterisk have not yet been completed. Copies of the reports on these surveys will be placed in the Library of the House when completed.

  I have also placed in the Library a list of all significant public consultation exercises carried out by my Department since 1 May 1997.

  Manufacturing Industry (East Asian Economic Crisis)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effects of the East Asian economic crisis on employment in the UK manufacturing sector. [48494]

  Mr. Battle
  The economic situation in East Asia is still evolving and the Government are monitoring it carefully. Adverse developments in the region are not good news in the short term for UK exporters with a significant presence there. Obviously, the prospects for manufacturing employment in the UK over the long term depend on the underlying competitiveness of British manufacturers, and that is an agenda which DTI is specifically addressing.

  Mirror Group
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the report of the investigation into the 1991 flotation of the Mirror Group; and if she will make a statement. [48558]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The inspectors have not yet reported to the Secretary of State.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her Department's role in discussions relating to the European structural funds for the period 2000 to 2006. [48774]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department of Trade & Industry is the lead Department on the reform of the European Structural and Cohesion Funds. Our responsibility is to co-ordinate UK policy on the reform for all Government Departments including Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Ireland Offices.

  Discussions have started on the proposed regulations by Member States at working group level. Officials of the Department of Trade & Industry attend on behalf of the UK, supported by other interested departments.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Concessionary Admission Charges
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives his Department is supporting for pensioners' concessionary admission charges at arts, leisure and tourist venues. [47678]
  241
  Mr. Fisher
  One of my Department's key objectives is to widen access to arts, leisure and tourist venues for all groups, including older people. Whilst pricing policies are at the discretion of the governing bodies of individual arts, leisure and tourist organisations to decide, the Department has a number of initiatives in place.

  We recently announced a £5 million New Audiences fund which will be used to discover the most effective ways to increase access to the arts for all age groups.

  All the national museums and galleries that charge for admission offer concessionary rates for older people. In addition, our Code of Good Access Practice, which we have issued for consultation to the wider museums and galleries sector, asks for views on whether there should be a standard group of concessions, including senior citizens. We hope to publish the final Code in the summer.

  Our new Sport for All policy will ensure that sporting opportunities are available to older people.

  One of the Tourism Forum Working Groups has been considering widening access for older people. The Group's report will feed into the new tourism strategy which should be published later this year.

  New Policy Directions issued on 1 June to Lottery distributors emphasised the importance of access for all. We are also encouraging local authorities to develop and publish leisure strategies to improve planning and policy making on issues such as widening access.

  2006 World Cup
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on progress in England's bid to host the 2006 World Cup. [47607]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: The Government are providing the fullest diplomatic and promotional support for the FA's bid to stage the 2006 World Cup. It is an excellent bid which, I believe, stands a very good chance of success. I hold regular meetings with the FA Campaign Team, and have joined FA delegations at meetings with several members of the FIFA Executive Committee, either here in London or in their home countries, to promote the merits of the bid. I intend to accompany FA delegations on future visits to promote the bid, as Parliamentary business allows. I have written to hon. Members urging them to use every opportunity to support the bid and have been heartened by the positive response I have received.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which stadiums he has evaluated in the planning of the bid to host the 2006 World Cup. [47604]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: This is a matter for the Football Association which need to meet the FIFA bid requirements which are due to be published at the end of 1998. Our stadia are amongst the best in the world, and were instrumental in making Euro 96 such a success. The FA will have many excellent stadia from which to choose.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from(a) sporting bodies and (b) sporting individuals
  242
  in (i) Northern Ireland, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales in respect of their access to the UK Sports Institute network; and if he will make a statement. [47795]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: No representations have been received in my Department from sporting bodies or sporting individuals in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales in respect of their access to the UK Sports Institute. Such individuals and bodies are, of course, welcome to discuss access to the UK Sports Institute network with the UK Sports Council.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the measures his Department has taken to invite sports to participate in the UK Sports Institute. [47796]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: Eight Sports Governing Bodies took up an invitation to have a statement of their potential requirements for training and related facilities added at the shortlisting stage of the bidding process for the UK Sports Institute Headquarters. Discussions are taking place at UK and Home Country level with Governing Bodies to establish the extent of their participation in the UK Sports Institute network, in terms of facilities, and in respect of their World Class Performance Plans.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in respect of the provision of(a) sports medicine, (b) sports science, (c) sports research, (d) talent identification and (e) the setting of standards within the UK Sports Institute. [47794]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The UK Sports Council has set up a sports science/sports medicine technical committee with representatives from each discipline to develop the approach to these services for the UK Sports Institute. The Institute will play a key role in sports research. The UK Sports Council is taking a lead in discussions with interested parties to establish systems to help identify sporting talent. The UK Sports Institute Headquarters will be responsible for accrediting the UK Sports Institute network to standards laid down by the UK Sports Council.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the nature of the sports research to be undertaken by the UK Sports Institute. [47793]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The nature of the sports research to be undertaken by the UK Sports Institute has not yet been defined but will complement the provision of services and training facilities to our top sportsmen and women. I understand that the hon. Member will be meeting the UKSI Project Team at the UK Sports Council next month and he will be able to get further reassurance on this and a range of related issues.

  UK Sports Council
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the support provided to the United Kingdom's top sportsmen and women by the UK Sports Council; and if he will make a statement. [48906]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Our top sportsmen and women need more support from Government and they will get it when the present arrangements for excellence in UK sport are
  243
  strengthened and streamlined. Devolution offers the opportunity to be much clearer in future about who provides help for what aspects of sport. The arrangements I am announcing today will ensure that sport in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland develops in line with what is wanted in each of those parts of the United Kingdom, and that we combine our strengths on the international stage.

  I have agreed with my colleagues that we will radically change the United Kingdom Sports Council, which we inherited from the previous Government. Our new strategy will give strong national direction and the powers to implement it. To support sport at UK level there will in future be:
  A "Sports Cabinet", chaired by me and bringing together the Sports Ministers of the four parts of the UK and others who are closely involved in the development of sport; and
  a stronger United Kingdom Sports Council to provide supports to our top athletes.

  The Sports Cabinet will meet several times a year and will give the joint political direction which was lacking in the current arrangements. The group will bring together the Ministers responsible for sport in the four parts of the UK under my Chairmanship. As the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland come into being the foremost member responsible for sport in each will take the place of the Government Minister for that part of the UK. The arm's length principle which we continue to hold important will be preserved, but the Cabinet will fill the policy vacuum which would exist if there were no opportunity for the collective political discussion of the most strategic priorities for UK sport.

  The strengthened UK Sports Council will coordinate: support to sports which compete internationally as the UK; combating drug misuse; international relations; major events; and development work on the UK Sports Institute. The Council will continue to operate at arm's length from Government. It will receive public funding from me and that funding will be subject to an agreement about key priorities. I would therefore expect the Sports Cabinet to exercise considerable influence over the affairs of the UK Sports Council.

  The Council will, for the first time, have direct control over Lottery funding which it will exercise independently. The funds will be allocated from the share Parliament has already allocated to the good cause of Sport. I will bring forward in the new session a negative resolution Order establishing the UKSC as a distributor and reallocating the sports good cause share between the five Councils. I estimate the UKSC will need about 5 per cent. (or £15 million) of the sports fund each year as well as a transfer to meet the commitment to building and running the Headquarters of the UK Sports Institute in Sheffield.

  I am commissioning today the detailed work to put these arrangements in place. Working with the Councils we will define clearly what is the remit of each distributor, bring forward any amendments to the Royal Charters which may be necessary and prepare the policy and financial directions.

  The Council also needs strong leadership. I have decided it is essential it has its own Chair, a person of standing in sport, who would not be the Chair of one of the Home Country Sports Councils. I have also decided
  244
  there should be at least seven independent Members including athletes and lay people with an enthusiasm for top class sport.

  I am today announcing that Sir Rodney Walker will leave the English Sports Council (ESC) and become Chair of the UKSC after the ESC's meeting next Monday. I have also indicated to the Council that I would be pleased if Craig Reedie became Sir Rodney's named deputy, to reflect the fact that the Olympic sports must compete as Great Britain and the role the British Olympic Association is expected to play in the UK Sports Institute. I am also pleased to announced that Trevor Brooking the Current Vice Chairman of the ESC, has agreed to become Acting Chairman of that Council. The Chair at the ESC and new UKSC members will be appointed in accordance with the guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  I have agreed with the new Chairman that from 13 July the new Chief Executive of the UKSC should be David Chesterton, a senior civil servant on secondment from my Department. He will replace Howard Wells, who resigned recently.

  Football Task Force
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Football Task Force report on ticketing will be published; and if he will make a statement. [47893]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: The Task Force is due to publish its report on ticketing, marketing and other commercial aspects of the game by the end of the year.

TREASURY

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the Accounting Standards Board on the proper presentation of risks and liabilities of Private Finance Initiative schemes. [44719]

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Accounting Standards Board regarding exposure draft FRS 5 on Accounting for the Substance of Transactions. [46375]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answers 10 and 18 June 1998]: In December 1997 the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) issued for comment an Exposure Draft on the accounting treatment of Private Finance Initiative transactions. HM Treasury submitted its formal response to the ASB on 3 March 1998 and we are continuing to have discussions with ASB representatives on this subject.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury will be bound by the terms of the exposure draft FRS 5. [46857]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: The proposed Application Note to FRS5 on the accounting treatment of Private Finance Initiative transactions is still in draft form and we are continuing to

  245
  have discussions with representatives of the Accounting Standards Board (ASB). The Treasury will consider the Application Note when it is published in final form.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on unemployment of a one per cent. increase in average earnings unmatched by any increase in productivity. [48556]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Pay in all sectors, and at all levels, must be related to what can be afforded. Excessive wage growth would tend to raise unemployment, but the precise effect would depend upon why wages increased, and how employers and employees reacted to the increase.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Self-harm)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of incidents of self-harm by(a) 15 and 16 year olds on remand in adult prisons and (b) other offenders aged under 21 years in custody which go unreported. [43835]

  Ms Quin
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Correspondence
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the volume of correspondence sent to and received from hon. Members by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the periods of(a) 1 January to 26 March 1994 and (b) 1 January to 26 March 1998. [47690]

  Mr. Straw
  The volume of correspondence sent to, and received from, hon. Members by my Department between the dates in question was as follows:

  Sent

  Received

  1 January–26 March 1994

  4,821

  6,146

  1 January–26 26 March 1998

  4,980

  5,855

  Medway Training Centre
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what occasions mail sent to a child at the Medway Training Centre has been withheld. [48161]

  Mr. Michael
  I am told that no such mail has been withheld.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of(a) self-harm and (b) attempted suicide by children have taken place at the Medway Training Centre. [48160]

  Mr. Michael
  There has been one incident of self-harm, in which the trainee scratched his arm. He was seen by medical staff but no treatment was required. No trainee has attempted suicide.
  246
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Home Office monitor is assigned to the Medway Training Centre; and if he will indicate their experience of working with institutions for children. [48162]

  Mr. Michael
  Brett Robinson, a Home Office official, is currently the Monitor for Medway Secure Training Centre, and he has a statutory duty to report to the Secretary of State on how the STC is being run. He has not had direct experience of working within an institution for children, but his training for the post included periods at local authority secure units. The Monitor has a wide range of experience which fits him for the role of monitoring the performance of the contractor in delivering the service required at the STC, including compliance with the Statutory Rules.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs have been incurred by the public sector for unfilled places at the Medway Training Centre since its opening. [48159]

  Mr. Michael
  The contract price is determined by the availability of places and the quality of service provided. There is a fixed daily price for the first 30 places available, irrespective of whether they are occupied or not, and a lower daily rate for the final 10 places if these are used.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees at the Medway Training Centre have previous experience of working with children with a history of offending. [48158]

  Mr. Michael
  We understand that around 30 per cent. of the staff who work directly with trainees at Medway Secure Training Centre have previously worked with young people with a history of offending. All staff have received training in understanding and dealing with disturbed adolescents.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average weekly cost of keeping a child at the Medway Training Centre. [48157]

  Mr. Michael
  The average cost of a place at Medway is £2,400 per week excluding capital costs. This compares with the average cost in local authority secure accommodation for 1997–98 of £2,570.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many family or social visits to a child held at the Medway Training Centre have been stopped since its opening. [48156]

  Mr. Michael
  None.

  Drug Users
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the funding of the South and West Devon fast track diversion and stabilisation scheme for drug users. [48145]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am aware that the scheme is currently facing some funding difficulties, and am consulting my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health on how these difficulties might be resolved.
  247
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had about the South and West Devon fast track diversion and stabilisation scheme for drug users. [48149]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 15 June, I met the Chief Probation Officer of Devon Probation Service and His Honour Judge William Taylor, the Liaison Judge on the Probation Committee, to discuss the funding of the scheme.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Criminal Injuries Compensation Board claims are currently being processed by their Complaints Board; what percentage this constitutes of total claims; and how many complaints relate to claims originating in each year since 1990. [47978]

  Mr. Michael
  It is assumed that the Question relates to appeals and other hearings cases still to be resolved by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) under the 1990 scheme, effective for claims received to 31 March 1996.

  At 26 June 1998, there were 17,736 such cases, forming 85 per cent. of the residual work outstanding under the 1990 scheme. The distribution according to the year in which the original claim was received is as follows:

  Year of receipt of original claim

  Appeals/hearings cases to be resolved

  Pre-1990

  352

  1990

  206

  1991

  425

  1992

  630

  1993

  1,055

  1994

  3,338

  1995

  8,063

  To 31 March 1996

  3,667

  Total

  17,736

  The total includes a number of cases resolved in previous years, but re-opened on medical grounds.

  For claims received under the 1990 scheme between 1990 and 31 March 1996, the percentage in which an application for, or referral to, an oral hearing was subsequently made averaged 20 per cent. (range 16 to 22 per cent.).

  For claims received on or after 1 April 1996 under the tariff-based scheme (in which CICB has no role), for decisions made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority are open to review by the Authority, and reviewed decisions are open to appeal before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel. Present indications are that the percentage of full appeals cases is less than 10 per cent. of total claims received. The new scheme is designed to offer a faster service to victims at all stages.

  Edgar Fernandes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will send a British police officer to Turkey to assist in the Edgar Fernandes murder inquiry; [47840]
  248
  (2) what steps he has taken since 25 June on the case of Edgar Fernandes; [48244]

  (3) what steps are being taken to monitor the Edgar Fernandes murder investigation in Turkey; and if he will make a statement; [47838]

  (4) what factors led to the decision to send Scotland Yard officers to (a) Cambodia to investigate the case of Christopher House and (b) to the South China Sea to investigate the case of Sea Captain Sir John Bashforth; [47841]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the level of co-operation between British and Turkish police forces in the investigation into the death of Edgar Fernandes; and what pressure is being put on the Turkish police to speed up their investigations into the circumstances of Edgar Fernandes's death. [47839]

  Mr. Michael
  Although the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have closely followed developments in the case of Edgar Fernandes, the murder investigation and any subsequent prosecution are matters for the Turkish authorities. The Turkish authorities have not requested any specific assistance from the United Kingdom in connection with the investigation, although the exchange of relevant information has taken place both through police channels, via Interpol, and via diplomatic channels, through our Consular Division here and Diplomatic Posts overseas.

  On 11 May, Interpol London was advised that a person suspected of committing the murder had been arrested in Malta. The Turkish authorities are currently applying for his extradition from Malta to face prosecution in Turkey. The Turkish Ministry of Justice sent the translated extradition request to the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 10 June. There may be a delay in its arrival in Malta because Turkey does not have diplomatic representation in Malta and it is understood that the paperwork will have to be processed via the Turkish Embassy in Rome.

  The level of co-operation between the British and Turkish police forces during the investigation, conducted via Interpol channels, has been generally good, although there have been some delays in information being provided to the British police by the Turkish authorities, partly because Turkey has chosen to send some responses via diplomatic channels rather than via Interpol where the British request originated. Both the British police and the Consular Division have been in regular contact with their Turkish counterparts to obtain information concerning developments, and will continue their efforts. It would probably be unhelpful, and possibly counter-productive, to go further than this, as undue pressure is likely to antagonise the Turkish authorities who are pursuing the investigation according to their national procedures. The situation is complicated by the fact that the murder suspect is in a third country and will have to be extradited to face prosecution, building in unavoidable delays.

  The Turkish authorities have not requested the presence of a British police officer in Turkey to assist with the investigation. A British police officer would have no jurisdiction to investigate the case in Turkey and his presence there would have to be authorised by the Turkish authorities. The Coroner at St. Pancras has made a request

  249
  to the Attorney General in Malta to allow a Metropolitan Police officer to interview the detained suspect in Malta to assist the inquest proceedings in Britain. The inquest has been opened and adjourned in Britain and a reply to the request is currently awaited from the Attorney General in Malta.

  The cases of Christopher Howes and Captain John Bashforth were both different from the present case. Mr. Howes was kidnapped and British police officers, trained in negotiation skills, went to Cambodia to assist with negotiations and in establishing Mr. Howes' whereabouts. British police made a number of visits to Cambodia and their involvement there concluded once the fates of Mr. Howes and the other hostage were discovered. The murder investigations then became a matter for the Cambodian authorities.

  British police officers did not go to Indonesia in 1996 to investigate the murder in 1992 of Captain Bashforth, but rather to review the investigation of the murder by the Indonesian police. The perpetrators of the murder have never been caught.

  The police and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to monitor developments in the case of Edgar Fernandes, in consultation with the relevant authorities in Turkey and Malta. In this regard, Interpol London are currently pursuing with their Maltese counterparts the question of the visit by a Metropolitan Police officer to facilitate the inquest being held in Britain.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the criteria on the basis of which asylum seekers detained under the immigration acts are classified as Category C status. [48306]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Detainees held under sole Immigration Act powers are not classified in accordance with Prison Service categorisation. The only exception would be where someone was held for reasons of national security.

  Most detainees are held in Immigration Service detention accommodation (which is not categorised according to Prison Service specifications), or the discrete centres at Rochester and Haslar. Those held in other Prison Service establishments are usually accommodated with remand prisoners and are therefore held in local prisons or remand centres which are category B security standard because of the wide range of offenders.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will place in the Library copies of gender impact assessments which have been undertaken in respect of legislation introduced in this Parliament; if he will make it his policy to do so in respect of future legislation; and if he will make a statement. [47019]
  250
  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development assesses all its policies and programmes for their gender impact. This is in line with the way the issue is being addressed through the cross-Departmental mainstreaming initiative.

  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women on 24 June 1998, Official Report, columns 557–58.

  Government Policies
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects undertaken by her Department since 1 May 1997 to research public reaction to(a) Government policies and (b) potential new policies; and if she will place the results of the research in the Library. [46675]

  Clare Short
  The Department regularly consults the public, interested parties and client groups by way of consultation papers, discussion groups and any other methods such as the recent White Paper on International Development.

  In addition, and in line with practice under the previous administration, and at similar cost, research was also carried out by Opinion Leader Research Ltd. shortly after this government took office to evaluate knowledge and opinions about development assistance. Copies of this research has been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Reproductive and Sexual Health
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make representations to the European Commission to set up a contracted-out expert network of advisers in reproductive and sexual health. [48262]

  Clare Short
  A network of external advisers in reproductive health, population and HIV/AIDS was created by Directorates General VIII and Ib of the Commission in February 1998, following an open tender competition. Expert advice is being provided by a consortium of four groups: International Health Services (Ghent), Deloitte and Touche and two UK-based groups, Liverpool Associates in Tropical Health and the Futures Group UK.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make representations to the European Commission to spend 300 million ecu on reproductive health issues as committed following the Cairo conference. [48261]

  Clare Short
  We maintain regular dialogue with the Commission on investments in reproductive health in developing countries. The Commission has exceeded its target of committing 300 million ecu in reproductive health assistance in the five years following the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development. We will do all we can to help ensure that this money is spent effectively.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to
  251
  commission further reviews of the implications for development of proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and if she will make a statement. [48058]

  Clare Short
  The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) Negotiating Group has tasked the Secretariat of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) with carrying out further analytical work on the development implications of the MAI. We expect to receive the Secretariat's initial proposals for this research shortly. We welcome the fact that the research is being taken forward by the Secretariat on behalf of the Negotiating Group as a whole. This indicates that there is now a broad interest among MAI negotiators in the development implications of the MAI. My Department will continue to keep in close touch with the Secretariat as their proposals develop and the research moves forward.

HEALTH

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of gender impact assessments which have been undertaken in respect of legislation introduced in this Parliament; if he will make it his policy to do so in respect of future legislation; and if he will make a statement. [47016]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women on 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58.

  Human Embryos
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many human embryos have been used in research projects since March 1991. [47902]

  Ms Jowell
  This information is not available in the form requested. The latest figures provided by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) show that 36,930 embryos created during the course of in vitro fertilisation treatments were donated to research projects between 1 August 1991 and 31 March 1996.

  In addition, a number of embryos are created for diagnostic purposes in treatments involving gamete intra-fallopian transfer—a procedure not governed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990—which, together with embryos created using supernumerary eggs produced in the course of that procedure, may be donated to research. It may also be possible for research embryos to be created using eggs donated for treatment but which are not, in the event, used for that purpose. The HFEA licenses about 2 or 3 research projects each year which may involve the creation of embryos. This will be only where such use is an essential requirement for the research project, for example in order to examine the viability of eggs which have been frozen, or the use of immature sperm for treatment purposes.

  Research on human embryos is subject to very strict controls under the terms of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Such research may be carried out only if effective consent, as defined in the Act, is given by the egg and sperm providers.

  Overseas Adoptions
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children from abroad have been adopted in the UK in each of the last 12 years. [48010]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department does not hold information about the number of children adopted from abroad, only about the number of intercountry adoption applications processed since 1992. These will account for the majority of such adoptions since then and are set out in the table:

  Year

  Number of intercountry adoption applications processed by the Department of Health

  1992

  48

  1993

  99

  1994

  113

  1995

  150

  1996

  310

  1997

  221

  January-June 1998

  125

  Total

  1,066

  Pharmacists
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to enhance the role of pharmacists in the delivery of primary care; [48235]

  (2) what plans he has to involve community pharmacists in promoting health advice to men over 40 years of age. [48236]

  Mr. Milburn
  We propose to publish a policy document in the autumn setting out proposals for the future role of community pharmacists within the National Health Service.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of consultations general practitioners carry out which could be effectively dealt with by(a) a pharmacist and (b) another member of a primary health care team. [48237]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are aware of a range of research and experience which suggests that some tasks currently undertaken by general practitioners could be carried out appropriately by pharmacists and other health professionals.

WALES

  Gwent Tertiary College
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what meetings he has held over the past 12 months concerning the spending of European funds at Gwent Tertiary College; [48197]

  (2) what discussions he has had with personnel of Gwent Tertiary College over the past 12 months relating to the spending of European funds at the college; [48184]

  (3) what representations he has received over the past 12 months concerning the spending of European funds at Gwent Tertiary College. [48198]
  253
  Mr. Hain
  I have had a number of meetings, and discussions. Officials from the Welsh Office and the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) have been in regular contact with the College concerning European funding. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Fraud Inspection Unit of DfEE and the Gwent Constabulary are currently investigating the receipt and allocation of European Social Funding by the College in 1995 and 1996.

  Phase Separations Company
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the closure of the Phase Separations Company on Deeside Industrial Park indicating the number of jobs lost and the areas in which they have been relocated. [47905]

  Mr. Hain
  The closure of any company with its associated loss of jobs is always regrettable. I understand that 28 jobs will be lost and that the company plans to transfer manufacturing to Ireland, distribution to Holland and administration to Watford. The local TEC is liaising with the Employment Service to see what help can be given to those employees made redundant.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that more deciduous trees will be planted; and if he will make a statement. [47914]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  We are fully committed to increasing the area of woodland in Wales, including deciduous woodland. Our grant-aid encourages the planting of deciduous trees and over 80 per cent. of the new woodland created in Wales in the past five years is deciduous. Moreover, the UK Forestry Standard, which we launched earlier this year, specifies that any new conifer woodland should include a proportion of deciduous trees. In addition, we have recently announced Challenge Funds for creating woodlands on bracken land and for new native woodlands in National Parks. In both cases, initial responses have been encouraging and much of the woodland planted under these initiatives will be deciduous.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the impact upon North East Wales of the Objective 1 status granted to Merseyside with regard to(a) the preparation of industrial infrastructure and (b) inward investment; and if he will make a statement. [47910]

  Mr. Hain
  I have no evidence to suggest that the designation of Merseyside as an Objective 1 area has had a detrimental effect on North East Wales. Indeed, the unemployment rate in Flintshire decreased from 4.5 per cent. in May 1997 to 3.9 per cent. in May 1998. Similarly in Wrexham, where the rate dropped from 4.7 per cent. in 1997 to 4 per cent. in 1998.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the prospects for the restoration of Objective 2 status in North East Wales; and if he will make a statement. [47907]
  254
  Mr. Hain
  The Commission's draft regulations for the Structural and Cohesion Funds which are part of the Agenda 2000 package were published on the 18 March. The Regulations must now be agreed by all fifteen Member States and approved where appropriate by the European Parliament.

  Our overriding concern in the long negotiations ahead is to ensure that these draft Regulations are fair, affordable and durable, particularly to the UK and its regions. We do not expect the Regulations for the Structural and Cohesion Funds to be adopted until early 1999. It would therefore be premature to speculate on which areas might qualify or on the amount of any aid which they might receive once the new Regulations come into effect.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the likely percentage of crops to be grown in Wales in 2008, which will be genetically modified; and if he will make a statement. [47913]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  There is no basis for making such an estimate as it is unlikely that commercially grown genetically modified crops will be harvested in the UK before next year. The Government will continue to monitor the situation.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the current rate of sterling on the steel industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [47904]

  Mr. Hain
  We fully recognise the worries of exporters and manufacturers about the current level of sterling. The Government's aim is a stable and competitive pound of the medium term. The most important thing is to deliver a stable economic environment—with sustained growth, less inflation and sound public finances—whilst at the same time introducing policies to promote enterprise and investment and raise the economy's sustainable rate of growth. The Government are determined to take a long-term view and not be diverted from this cause by short-term pressures.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has taken to improve access to cancer treatment in North Wales; and if he will make a statement. [47911]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Improving cancer services is a priority for the Government and I am pleased to say that I am making available over £20 million to fund the building of a new cancer centre for North Wales based at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. I laid the foundation stone a few weeks ago and the new centre should open in June 2000. The centre will provide high-quality cancer services to people from North Wales and will save seriously ill patients making long journeys to English centres.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients in each health authority area were waiting for treatment on the NHS at January for each year since 1992 broken down by medical specialty. [48081]
  255
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Due to the volume of data requested, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much public money will be used to publicise the Welsh Assembly elections. [48445]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 23 June 1998,Official Report, column 45.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contingency plans his Department is making in the event of the failure of computer systems to recognise the year 2000; when he expects them to be in place, and tested; and if he will make a statement. [48843]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster presents quarterly reviews to Parliament of progress on tackling all issues relating to the Millennium date change problem across central Government. His last Report was made on 8 June. At the same time, copies of all Departmental plans are placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and published on the Internet. At this time, I have nothing to add to the Welsh Office's recently published plans.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Chairman of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation concerning the adjudication by the Parliamentary Commissioner into the Friends of the Earth complaint regarding refusal of information on the Gwent Levels mitigating works and bird reserve; and if he will make a statement. [48624]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if his review of the Cardiff Bay Barrage is based on the principle of retaining the 1994 cap and economising on ancillary projects; [48622]

  (2) on what date he commenced his review of the total costs of the Cardiff Bay Barrage; when he expects to complete his review of the barrage cost cap; and if he will place a copy of the completed review in the Library; [48623]

  (3) what provision he has made for increasing the grant-in-aid to the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation in association with the completion of his costs cap review; what increased barrage project costs he has already approved; and what increases in costs have been submitted for approval. [48625]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Corporation made available to my Department in February a confidential internal review on the costs of the Barrage project. That review has since been the subject of discussion with the Corporation. On 29 June, I reaffirmed my guidance to the Board that tight 256
  control should be exercised over these costs to contain them within the total of £191m announced to Parliament, including provision of £8.8m for the Bird Reserve.

  I have asked the Corporation to prepare an update of the review document, excluding commercially confidential material, as soon as possible. I shall arrange for a copy of that document to be placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the public registers which her Department has responsibility for. [47347]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: This Department does not maintain any public registers. However, the Registrar of Occupational and Personal Pensions maintains a register of occupational and personal pensions pursuant to regulation 2 of the Register of Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/371). The Registrar is an independent statutory office-holder appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will make a statement on the training given to officers of her Department in dealing with disabled people; [48000]

  (2) what guidance has been issued to offices of her Department on the treatment of disabled people when double checking benefits claims through interviews. [47996]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Disability Benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. David Prior, dated 1 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning the training given to officers in respect of dealing with disabled people and the guidance issued to offices on the treatment of disabled people when double checking benefit claims through interviews. As Mr. Mathison is on annual leave, I am replying.
  The Benefits Agency (BA) aims to ensure that all our customers have equal access to the benefits system, and that wherever possible, our services can accommodate their individual needs. BA staff are trained in dealing with people with disabilities. The Agency recognises the need to develop appreciation of all equal opportunity issues, and as such, provides training in serving the needs of the community. It is our policy to work in partnership with organisations from the voluntary sector to identify areas where improvements could be made.
  An example of this partnership is the Disability Awareness Training that was undertaken with the Disability Income Group, to enable the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) visiting officers to understand the needs of disabled people. Refresher training for BIP visiting officers began on 18 May 1998 and was completed on 5 June 1998. This training addressed such issues as the improvements to the project, customer relations and again it concluded input from the Disability Income Group.

  257
  The BA operates a dedicated telephone helpline to meet the special needs of people with disabilities. Staff on the Benefit Enquiry Line (BEL) provide advice and information about social security benefits and how to claim them. They can also provide help and assistance with the completion of disability claim forms. In addition to the full range of social security benefits, the initial training for the operators includes disability awareness. This is supported by ongoing workshops which concentrate on the individual needs of customers suffering from a wide range of disabilities. Most recently this has included awareness training on the problems encountered by people with Mental Health problems.
  All managers are responsible for providing training which will help staff to meet the needs of their customers. We actively encourage them to use the expertise and support available from local public and private sector organisations and the voluntary sector. To assist managers, we have provided them with information on the awareness programmes and services available from a range of organisations.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Widowers
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate her Department has made of the numbers of widowers who would be entitled to a widow's pension if the current scheme for women were to be extended to men; what estimate she has made of the numbers of children of widowers who would benefit from equal treatment being extended to their fathers; and if she will make a statement. [48621]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of widowers who would be entitled to a Widow's Pension or Widowed Mother's Allowance if the current scheme for women were extended to men is estimated to be up to 100,000.

  It is estimated that up to 30,000 children would be covered by the extension of equal treatment to their fathers.
  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  2. Figures should be treated with caution due to weaknesses in the available data.

  3. Due to lack of data, the number of children in families where the parent is a widowed father is assumed to be the same as the number of children in families where the parent is a widowed mother.

  4. Widow's pension has been interpreted to mean those widowers entitled to either Widow's Pension or Widowed Mother's Allowance.

  Source:
  Government Actuary Department (pre-1991 data).

  Motability
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answers of 25 June 1998,Official Report, columns 624–25, on Motability, if she will hold meetings with hon. Members who have a constituency interest, and with representatives of the motor manufacturing industry, to discuss the implications of the paper, Motability: MFL's Maintenance and Residual Value Proposals, before these proposals are implemented. [48594]

  Mr. Denham
  My noble Friend the Baroness Hollis of Heigham will be discussing the implications of the paper Motability: MFL's Maintenance and Residual Value Proposals with representatives of Ford Motor Company 258
  Ltd, the Disabled Driver's Association, colleagues from the Department of Trade and Industry and Motability, in the near future. Motability have advised that they would be happy to arrange to discuss this issue in detail with hon. Members who have an interest.

  Armed Forces Personnel
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many armed forces personnel are currently claiming benefits. [48559]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The only available source of data about the number of armed forces personnel in receipt of Social Security benefits is the Family Resources Survey (FRS). This asks respondents in private households in Great Britain for a job description, and therefore includes only armed forces services personnel living at private addresses in Ministry of Defence (MOD) establishments. The latest year for which FRS information is available is 1996–97. For that year, in around half the cases where the respondent was identified as being in the armed forces, the individual, or their partner (if they had one) was in receipt of at least one Social Security benefit. Almost exclusively, the only benefit in payment was Child Benefit.

  On 1 April 1997, there were the full-time equivalent of 212,800 UK armed forces services personnel resident in the United Kingdom. Published MOD statistics do not identify within this number servicemen living at private addresses.
  Note:
  The answer refers to cases where the benefit unit to which the respondent belongs is in receipt of at least one Social Security benefit. It is based on a sample and is therefore subject to sampling error and variability in non-response.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the public registers which his Department has responsibility for. [47357]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: The only register that my Department is required to hold and publish by law is a register of all Statutory Instruments which have been made. The Queen's Printer is required under the Statutory Instruments Act to ensure publication of a list of the Statutory Instruments which have been registered, and this is currently undertaken by The Stationery Office Limited.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome (Sponsors)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if each zone in the Millennium Dome has a sponsor; and if he will list each committed sponsor to each zone and the amount of the sponsorship contribution. [45137]
  259
  Mr. Mandelson
  Five zones have confirmed Founding Partner sponsors:

  Work ("Licensed to Skill")—Manpower

  Learn ("Learning Curve")—Tesco

  Play ("Serious Play")—BSkyB

  Talk ("Time to Talk")—BT

  National Identity (UK@now)—Marks and Spencer (part sponsor).

  The New Millennium Experience Company is in advanced discussions with sponsors of a further five zones. Over £100m of sponsorship support has been identified. Further announcements will be made shortly.

  Millennium Dome (Human Figure)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what representations he has received on the sex of the giant human figure in the Millennium Dome. [47280]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company and I have received a few letters from members of the public about the figure. The Company have tried wherever possible to take into account the views expressed in drawing up the detailed design brief.

  Unit

  Function

  RAF Provost and Security Services

  Security support, criminal investigations and provost operations assistance to the RAF

  Provost and Security Services (Western Region)

  Specialist police and security support to all RAF establishments within the West Midlands, the West Country and Mid Wales

  Defence Vetting Agency (RAF)

  Security clearances for RAF military and civilian personnel, and defence industry employees.

  Defence Communication Services Agency

  The Services Management Centre of the Agency, including the Primary Network Control Centre of the Defence Fixed Telecommunications Service

  Detachment of 1001 Signals Unit. RAF

  Participation in the operation of the UK military communications satellite system

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Restricted Enforcement Unit
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Attorney-General what contribution his Department makes to the work of the restricted enforcement unit. [47150]

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  International and Organised Crime
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Attorney-General how the Crown Prosecution Service is joining with the national crime squad to fight international and organised crime. [47151]

  The Attorney-General
  The nature of the work of the National Crime Squad means that in many cases there will be an ongoing requirement for specialist legal advice from the earliest stage right through the investigation. The CPS and the National Crime Squad are working together to ensure that need is met.

  Barristers' Fees
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the monitoring and assessment of banisters' fees. [47152]

  Millennium Dome (Air-conditioning)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what representations he has received about the use of HFCs in the proposed air-conditioning for the Millennium Dome. [48073]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: I have received representations about the air-conditioning system within the Dome from a number of individuals and organisations, both for and against the system chosen.

DEFENCE

  RAF Rudloe Manor
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what functions are carried out at RAF Rudloe Manor; and which organisations are based there. [46840]

  Dr. Reid
  RAF Rudloe Manor is an administrative establishment providing accommodation and support for a number of defence organisations. The following units are located there:

  The Attorney-General
  No specific representations have been received about monitoring banisters' fees. Concerns have been expressed by the Bar about the disparity between prosecution and defence fees in the Crown Court.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the future of the Crown Prosecution Service with(a) the Home Secretary and (b) a chief officer of police in England and Wales. [47153]

  The Attorney-General
  I frequently discuss matters of mutual interest with Ministerial colleagues including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Officials from the Crown Prosecution Service likewise have frequent discussions with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers. These discussions promote co-operation and effective joint working between agencies in the criminal justice system and are a key feature of the Government's commitment to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System generally.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on reform of the Crown Prosecution Service. [47155]
  261
  The Attorney-General
  I published the report of the Review of the Crown Prosecution Service (the Glidewell Review) on 1 June 1998. Its main thrust, which we accept, lies in proposals for reordering CPS priorities to focus more on the core business of prosecuting, greater separation of management from legal work, greater autonomy for the areas and better prospects for staff.

  We immediately accepted the recommendation for the appointment of a Chief Executive and work is already underway within the CPS and other Departments to consider the recommendations. I expect to provide the House with a progress report in the Autumn.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Swimming
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the range and quality of swimming instruction in primary schools; and if he will make a statement. [41848]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools reports annually to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the standards and quality of physical education, including swimming, and other subjects taught in schools. For 1996–97 he reported that achievement in swimming was generally good in primary schools.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that swimming and water safety are a statutory requirement of the core curriculum within the National Curriculum at Key Stages 1 and 2. [41449]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment believes it is important that children learn how to swim. This is a safety measure and will remain part of the primary curriculum.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that funding given by his Department for swimming and water safety is used solely for those purposes. [41445]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department allocates no funding specifically for swimming and water safety. Primary schools must ensure that they teach swimming as part of the National Curriculum for physical education.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of primary schools in Coventry provide teaching in

  GCSE achievements of 15 year old pupils1 in all schools, by each twentieth group of pupils ranked according to their GCSE/GNVQ point score for all subjects

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  (c) All 15 year old pupils

  Number of 15 year olds

  Average No. of GCSE entries per pupil

  Average point score per 15 year old pupil in all subjects

  Number of 15 year olds

  Average No. of GCSE entries per pupil

  Average point score per 15 year old pupil in all subjects

  Number of 15 year olds

  Average No. of GCSE entries per pupil

  Average point score per 15 year old pupil in all subjects

  14,975

  0.0

  0.0

  14,363

  0.0

  0.0

  29,338

  0.0

  0.0

  14,976

  2.0

  0.4

  14,363

  4.0

  3.1

  29,339

  2.9

  1.3

  14,975

  4.7

  5.8

  14,363

  6.5

  11.5

  29,338

  5.4

  8.1

  14,976

  6.5

  11.4

  14,362

  7.7

  17.9

  29,338

  7.1

  14.3

  262
  swimming and water safety; and what was the level of LEA funding for this purpose in (a) Coventry and (b) the West Midlands in each of the last five years. [40944]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 8 May 1998]: The Department does not collect information centrally on the provision and funding of teaching in swimming and water safety. Funding for swimming tuition, the care and maintenance of swimming pools, and transport and admission to swimming pools is usually included within schools' delegated budgets.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of primary schools in the UK currently provide swimming and water safety skills; and what is the figure for other European Union countries. [40943]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 8 May 1998]: All primary schools in England are required to teach swimming, including the principles and skills of water safety and survival, as part of the National Curriculum for physical education. They will continue to be required to do so.

  Questions about teaching in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales.

  The Department does not collect information about provision for the teaching of swimming or water safety skills in other European Union countries.

  GCSE/GNVQ Scores
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the average GCSE/GNVQ point scores in 1997 of each equal twentieth group of(a) male, (b) female and (c) all 15 year old pupils when all such pupils are ranked by their total GCSE/GNVQ points scores, assuming that GNVQ grades are assigned points such that at intermediate level a distinction equals 7.5 points, a merit equals 6 points, and a pass equals 5 points, and at foundation level a distinction equals 4 points, a merit equals 3 points, and a pass equals 1.5 points; if he will list the number of pupils in each group, the average number of GCSEs entered per pupil in each group and the proportions of pupils in each group who took (i) an intermediate GNVQ and (ii) a foundation GNVQ; and if he will indicate the numbers gaining each grade. [44956]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: The information requested in respect of average GCSE/GNVQ point scores is shown in the following table. However, information on the proportion of pupils in each group who took GNVQs is not available.
  263

  GCSE achievements of 15 year old pupils1 in all schools, by each twentieth group of pupils ranked according to their GCSE/GNVQ point score for all subjects

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  (c) All 15 year old pupils

  Number of 15 Year olds

  Average No. of GCSE entries per pupil

  Average point score per 15 year old pupil in all subjects

  Number of 15 Year olds

  Average No. of GCSE entries per pupil

  Average point score per 15 year old pupil in all subjects

  Number 15 year olds

  Average No. of GCSE entries per pupil

  Average point score per 15 year old pupil in all subjects

  14,975

  7.4

  16.1

  14,363

  8.3

  22.9

  29,339

  7.8

  19.1

  14,976

  7.9

  20.1

  14,363

  8.6

  26.9

  29,338

  8.3

  23.2

  14,975

  8.3

  23.6

  14,363

  8.8

  30.4

  29,338

  8.6

  26.8

  14,976

  8.6

  26.9

  14,363

  8.9

  33.5

  29,338

  8.7

  30.1

  14,975

  8.7

  30.0

  14,363

  9.0

  36.4

  29,339

  8.9

  33.2

  14,976

  8.9

  33.0

  14,363

  9.1

  39.1

  29,338

  9.0

  36.1

  14,975

  9.0

  36.0

  14,362

  9.2

  41.9

  29,338

  9.1

  39.0

  14,975

  9.1

  38.8

  14,363

  9.2

  44.4

  29,339

  9.2

  41.7

  14,976

  9.2

  41.7

  14,363

  9.3

  47.0

  29,338

  9.2

  44.4

  14,975

  9.2

  44.5

  14,363

  9.3

  49.4

  29,338

  9.3

  47.1

  14,976

  9.3

  47.3

  14,363

  9.4

  52.0

  29,339

  9.4

  49.8

  14,975

  9.4

  50.3

  14,363

  9.5

  54.7

  29,338

  9.4

  52.6

  14,976

  9.5

  53.6

  14,362

  9.5

  57.5

  29,338

  9.5

  55.7

  14,975

  9.6

  57.4

  14,363

  9.6

  60.8

  29,338

  9.6

  59.3

  14,976

  9.8

  62.3

  14,363

  9.7

  64.9

  29,339

  9.7

  63.8

  14,975

  10.2

  71.6

  14,363

  10.2

  72.7

  29,338

  10.2

  72.2

  299,509 (Total)

  27.9

  233.5

  Total 287,257

  28.3

  238.4

  Total 586,766

  28.1

  235.9

  1Those pupils aged 15 at 31 August 1996

  2Overall average

  Drama Students
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students in each of the last 10 years for which records are available attended drama schools accredited by the Conference of Drama Schools; how many of those students were in receipt of discretionary grants from local education authorities; what was the average value of those grants; and how many of those students received a student loan. [46510]

  Dr. Howells
  Of the 19 schools which are members of the Conference of Drama Schools, the Department has data on only those five which are publicly funded, namely, the Central School of Speech and Drama, the Rose Bruford College, Queen Margaret College, the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama and the Welsh College of Music and Drama. Figures for the last 10 years for these five establishments are given in the table.

  Further and higher education student enrolments

  Year

  Number

  1988/891

  903

  1989/901

  943

  1990/91

  1,498

  1991/92

  1,747

  1992/93

  2,005

  1993/94

  2,233

  1994/952

  2,021

  1995/96

  2,236

  1996/97

  2,534

  1997/98

  2,757

  1Excludes figures for the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama and Queen Margaret College for 1988–89 and 1989–90

  2A change in data collection in 1994–95 means that figures are not directly comparable. Available information on student awards and loans does not distinguish subject of study or institution attended

  Non-core Curriculum Subjects
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statutory requirements relating to the six non-core curriculum subjects for 5 to 11 year olds in maintained schools will be lifted in September. [46099]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  From September 1998 we are relaxing the requirement for schools to follow the full Key Stage 1 and 2 programmes of study in geography, history, music, art, design and technology and physical education. Schools must still provide a balanced and broadly based curriculum and must continue to teach each of these subjects, but they will no longer have to teach the subject's full programme of study. It will be for schools themselves to review their current provision and use the new flexibility to decide what changes, if any, might be appropriate. Swimming must remain part of the PE curriculum in all primary schools. This is a safety measure.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current statutory curriculum requirement to provide physical education to 5 to 11 year olds in maintained schools; and what it will be from September. [46103]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 18 June 1998]: All schools must teach physical education as part of their broad and balanced curriculum.

  For two years from September 1998 primary schools must continue to teach physical education, but will no longer have to teach the full programme of study. Swimming must remain part of all primary schools' physical education curriculum.
  265
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools failed to meet the curriculum requirements for physical activity in(a) Coventry, (b) the West Midlands and (c) England for the last three years. [46862]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 24 June 1998]: The evidence from Ofsted inspections of non-compliance of schools with the National Curriculum for physical education is as follows.

  Number of schools

  (a) Coventry

  Primary schools 1996–97

  0

  Primary schools summer term 1995–96

  1

  Secondary schools 1996–97

  0

  Secondary schools summer term 1995–96

  0

  (b) West Midlands

  Primary schools 1996–97

  9

  Primary schools summer term 1995–96

  6

  Secondary schools 1996–97

  4

  Secondary schools summer term 1995–96

  3

  (c) England

  Primary schools 1996–97

  255

  Primary schools summer term 1995–96

  76

  Secondary schools 1996–97

  82

  Secondary schools summer term 1995–96

  28

  Changes in the Framework for Inspection mean that no information is available prior to the summer term of the 1995–96 school year.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how schools are monitored to ensure that they meet the minimum curriculum requirements for physical activity. [46861]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 24 June 1998]: Physical Education will remain compulsory for all schools.

  Ofsted inspections report on individual schools' compliance with the National Curriculum, which includes physical education. At a national level, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Political Advisers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many political advisers have been appointed since 1 May 1997; and if he will list the position held in his Department by each. [46718]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 June 1998]: There are three full-time equivalent political adviser posts in the Department for Education and Employment. The additional post was agreed by the Prime Minister to provide support to my right hon. Friend in dealing with written material, reflecting the particular circumstances he faces in undertaking his job on equal terms with other ministerial colleagues.

  Headship Qualification
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are 266
  currently taking part in the new professional headship qualification; and how many have dropped out of it to date. [46842]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Approximately 3,000 teachers were taking part on National Professional Qualifications for Headship courses during 1997–98. An estimate of the number who have left the courses is not yet available.

  Training
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department has taken to measure the success of training in terms of its contribution to the securing of permanent employment. [47041]

  Dr. Howells
  Training is an important part of the Department's plans to help people move from welfare into work. It is used as a means to improve employability so that unemployed people can enter and remain in productive work. All training interventions have monitoring and evaluation strategies. These measure how trainees fare after training, and, where possible, compare the experiences of trainees with people who do not receive training, so that the effect of training can be identified.

  Music Teachers
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's policy on the future provision and funding of music teachers in primary schools. [47071]

  Mr. Byers
  Funding for the teaching of music in the primary school curriculum will continue to be included in schools' budget shares. Initial teacher training courses for music teachers will continue to be funded through the Teacher Training Agency.

  Our requirements for initial teacher training, which we announced in June 1997, will allow trainees to specialise across the 7–11 age range. From this September primary teachers will be able to specialise in music as part of their course. The new standards for Qualified Teacher Status, which all trainees will be required to achieve, will ensure that they are equipped with appropriate subject knowledge, understanding and skills.

  Instrumental music tuition by external teachers may be purchased by schools, but as announced in the recent consultation paper "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools", the Government are considering the scope to offer protection for LEA music services through the Standards Fund.

  Remploy
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to appoint worker directors to the board of Remploy. [46994]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to appoint worker directors to Remploy's Board.

  School Meetings
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the
  267
  administrative cost to schools to (a) prepare for, (b) publicise and (c) hold annual school meetings in respect of (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools. [47402]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made no such estimate.

  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average percentage attendance by parents at annual school meetings of(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in the last year for which figures are available. [47403]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will(a) place in the Library and (b) issue to the Access Committee for England a copy of the review which was carried out jointly by the Department of Health, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Department for Education and Employment of ACE's performance. [47738]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: I have considered this question in relation to the guidance in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The review of the funding arrangements for the Access Committee for England (ACE) that was completed in March reflects internal discussion and advice—one of the categories of information exempt from the commitments to provide information—and I have concluded that it would not be appropriate to publish the submission that was made to me. I have, however, explained the decision to Mr. Peter Lainson, Chairman of ACE, in writing. I have also agreed to meet him to discuss the decision and his concerns.

  There have been two reviews in connection with ACE. A review in 1996 examined their role and functions, taking into account their performance. It established new and different terms of reference for ACE. Mr. Alistair Burt, then a Department of Social Security Minister, also put in place funding arrangements, secure until 31 March 1998, to give ACE time to adapt to its new role.

  The review concluded earlier this year looked at the funding arrangements that had been agreed to help ACE in that transitional period. The conclusion was that, in accordance with a general policy of moving away from core funding to funding for specific projects, funding under s64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 for ACE's central administrative costs should cease. ACE are free to bid competitively for specific projects.

  Village Schools
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if, under the new policy on village school closures, an amalgamation of village schools is to be treated the same as a closure of a village school; if such amalgamations have to be proposed by the LEA to the Secretary of State for approval; and if he will make a statement. [47997]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The closure of any school requires the publication of statutory proposals, irrespective of whether the school is to be
  268
  amalgamated with another school. In the case of a rural school, any such proposals will be called in for decision by the Secretary of State. The presumption will be against closure, although all cases will be considered on their merits, taking into account all relevant factors.

  Key Stage 2
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons Key Stage 2 assessment reports were not made available for pupils at schools in Dorset during the week commencing 22 June; and if he will make a statement. [48506]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I understand from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) that the contractor employed to process and notify Key Stage 2 and 3 test results to schools this year has experienced technical problems with this work. We regret this delay and will be looking with QCA at how this problem occurred and can be avoided in the future.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects all outstanding Key Stage 2 assessment reports to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [48505]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We regret the delay that schools have experienced in receiving their Key Stage 2 test results this year. We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to do all they can to keep this delay to a minimum. We are taking a close interest in ensuring that schools receive their results at the earliest opportunity.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Council
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the value of exports generated by the British Council. [47984]

  Mr. Fatchett
  It is difficult to ascribe a value to UK exports resulting from British Council activity. All its activities enhance the image of the UK and much of what it does leads directly to export benefits. The Council works closely with the FCO, DfEE, DCMS and DTI in promoting the use of British goods and services in education and training and the creative industries. Exports in these sectors were recently estimated at £15 billion. The Council's role is particularly important in student recruitment: the number of overseas students in the UK has doubled over the last six years. In 1997–98, 203,000 overseas students enrolled in UK higher education and it is estimated that the value of this to the economy is in excess of £1 billion annually.

  In the cultural field the Council mounts over 2,700 events per year overseas presenting the best of British creativity in the performing arts, literature, fashion and design. The showcase of British theatre which it organised at the Edinburgh Festival in 1997, attended by 220 theatre producers from around the world, has already resulted in over 40 weeks of touring bookings. More than £1 million

  269
  of income was generated by nine Scottish record labels which were part of the British presence at the Cannes Music Industry Fair in January this year.

  The Council's role in support of the Government's export promotion policies will continue to grow through new initiatives such as the formation of the Creative Industries Export Promotion Advisory Group, a public/ private partnership aimed at co-ordinating activities and developing an export strategy in this sector.

  India and Pakistan
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Commonwealth initiatives have been taken to persuade the Indian and Pakistan Governments to discontinue their nuclear weapons programmes. [47879]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Commonwealth Secretary-General has written to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan. At a press conference in Johannesburg on 3 June, he also made clear the Commonwealth Secretariat's readiness to help ease tension between the two countries.

  Edgar Fernandes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken since the meeting on 8 May, on the case of Edgar Fernandes. [48246]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met representatives of the Fernandes family on 27 May to discuss the police investigation and the way forward. Diplomatic Notes have been sent to the Foreign Ministries in Ankara and Valletta to remind them of our continuing interest in this case. Our missions in Ankara and Valletta continue to monitor the progress on request by the Turkish Ministry of Justice for Mr. Mohamed Abdal Monem Abbas Aly to be extradited from Malta to Turkey to stand trial for the murder of Mr. Fernandes.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) of 19 June 1998,Official Report, column 327, if he discussed the case of Edgar Fernandes during his visit to Ankara. [47873]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not discuss the case of Edgar Fernandes during his recent visit to Ankara.

  Turkey
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 May 1998,Official Report, column 488, if he will provide a breakdown, by ethnic origin, of the 174 disappearances of British citizens in Turkey. [48245]

  Mr. Fatchett
  No. We do not keep details of ethnic origin in these cases. All cases are dealt with on their merits regardless of ethnic origin.

  FCO Recruitment
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what publicity was given to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office recruitment event 270
  held on 17 June, aimed at attracting ethnic minority and disabled graduates; what criteria were used for selecting invitees; and which (a) members of the Press and (b) Press organisations, were informed in advance of the event. [47865]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Following consultations between Recruitment Section and Mr. Spencer, our Minority Ethnic Liaison Officer, a strategy was devised to ensure that publicity for the FCO Recruitment Fair was directed at our target audiences—those undergraduates or graduates with disabilities, or who were from minority ethnic groups. At the Afro-Caribbean Finance forum in February, partly financed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, all visitors to the FCO stand were invited to apply for invitations. "Advertorials" in the March editions of Eastern Eye, Asian Times, the Caribbean Times and New Nation advised readers to contact the FCO Recruitment Section for invitations. We approached 3 organisations—Windsor Fellowship, Workable and Project Fullemploy—to advise their members of the fair and to supply Recruitment Section with details of people to whom we could send invitations. In addition the Presidents of Asian and Afro-Caribbean Student Societies at British Universities were sent invitations which also asked them to bring up to 4 of their colleagues with them. The FCO also publicised the Fair at Community Forum events at Enfield, Peterborough, Walsall, Huddersfield, Preston, Durham, Redbridge, Nottingham, Tameside and Rugby.

  In addition to the four publications in which we placed "advertorials" in March, the FCO invited to attend the fair all the UK national written and broadcast media and a wide range of media specialising in minority ethnic and disabled issues.

  Over 2,000 invitations were issued and over 700 people attended the fair. Feedback on the day was very positive.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to(a) maintain and (b) enhance the BBC World Service. [48266]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Government are committed to the maintenance of the World Service's reputation for objective news and comment and pre-eminence among international broadcasters. Financial support for the World Service, along with other commitments, is currently being examined as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to assist the BBC World Service in retaining its Chinese Service. [48265]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Broadcasting in vernacular languages is an important element in the World Service's ability to reach its target audiences. The Chinese service is one of the World Service's key language services. We support the priority which the World Service gives to the Chinese Service.

  Venezuela
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Venezuela regarding the protection of rainforests. [47751]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: Our Ambassador in Venezuela raised the protection of Venezuela's rainforest with the Venezuelan Vice-Minister of the Interior in March 1998. They discussed the actions being taken by the Venezuelan Government to tackle the forest fires on the border with Brazil, and the impact of development on the fragile rainforest ecosystem and indigenous cultures.

  In January 1998, I wrote to the Venezuelan Ambassador in London to ask what action was being taken by the Venezuelan Government to protect areas of rainforest inhabited by the Yanomami people from illegal miners and loggers. The Venezuelan Secretary of State for the Environment replied in June outlining the national strategies being adopted to address the problem.

  Ottawa Convention
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when instructions were given to parliamentary counsel to commence drafting the Bill to enable the Government to ratify the Ottawa Convention. [48281]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: Work on the text of the Bill began in February and, after comprehensive consultation with interested Whitehall Departments, instructions were sent to parliamentary counsel on 9 June. Final drafting procedures are now complete and the Bill is due to be published tomorrow.

  Saudi Arabia (Prisoners)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Saudi Arabian Government about the arrests of the Filipinos Ariel Ordona, Ruben Aguire, Angelito Sizon and Juanito Manalili; if he will ask where they are being held and what charges are being brought against them; if he will seek assurances about their safety; and if he will make a statement. [48018]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: We are in close touch with the Philippines embassy in Riyadh about these arrests, and have also discussed them with the Saudi Arabian government. We believe that Juanito Manalili has been released, but details of the whereabouts of the other detainees and what charges they face remain unclear. The Saudi authorities are aware of our views on the need for greater freedom of worship for non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia.

  European Council
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will specify the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for July; and if he will list the major European Union events for the next six months. [49162]
  272
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information requested is as follows.

  European Calendar: July-December 1998

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  July 1998

  1–2

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  6

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  6–7

  Vienna

  Political Committee

  8–10

  Innsbruck

  Employment/Social Affairs/Women (Informal)

  13

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  13–14

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  13–17

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  17

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  17–19

  Graz, Austria

  Environment Council (Informal)

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  August 1998

  There are no Councils scheduled for this month.

  September 1998

  3

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  5–6

  Salzburg

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  7–8

  Brussels

  Special Committee on Agriculture

  10–11

  Linz

  Culture Council

  14–18

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  15–16

  Bregenz

  Transport Council (Informal)

  21

  New York

  Political Committee

  19–22

  St. Wolfgang Austria

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  24

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs

  24

  Brussels

  Internal Market

  25–27

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council (Informal)

  28–29

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  October 1998

  Date to be confirmed

  Vienna

  Meeting of Heads of State and Government

  1–2

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  2–3

  Luxembourg

  Industry/Research and Technology Council (Informal)

  5

  Luxembourg

  Work and Social Affairs Council

  5

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  5–6

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  5–9

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  6

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  12

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  13

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  13

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  19–23

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  22

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  23–24

  Luxembourg

  Education Council (Informal)

  26

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  26–27

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  28–29

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  29–30

  Vienna

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  November

  4–5

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  9

  Brussels

  political Committee

  9

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  9–10

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  12

  Brussels

  Health Council

  16

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  16–20

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  17

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  20

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  23

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  23–24

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  25

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  273

  European Calendar: July-December 1998

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  26

  Brussels

  Youth Council

  26

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  30

  Brussels

  Development Council

  30–1 December

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  December

  1

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  1–2

  Brussels

  Work and Social Affairs Council

  2–3

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  3–4

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs

  4

  Brussels

  Education Council

  7

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  7–8

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10

  Brussels

  Research Council

  11

  Vienna

  Political Committee

  11–12

  Vienna

  European Council

  14–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  14–18

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  15

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  Note:

  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  Monthly Forecast of Business for July 1998

  The following Councils are scheduled:

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  July 1998

  6

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  8–10

  Innsbruck

  Employment/Social Affairs/Women (Informal)

  13–14

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  17

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  17–19

  Brussels

  Environment Council (Informal)

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:
  July 6: ECOFIN Council

  Approval of the provisional agenda.

  Approval of the list of A items.

  Work programme of Austrian Presidency: Open debate.

  European Council in Cardiff: Follow up.

  Preparation of Stage 3 of EMU.

  Commission proposals for Council Regulations on the harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (possible item).

  Electronic Commerce: Draft Council conclusions on the indirect taxation aspects.

  Code of Conduct Group: Establishment of sub-groups (possible item).

  Services of general economic interest in the banking sector:

  Presentation of report by the Commission.

  Any other business.

  July 8–10: Employment/Social Affairs/Women (Informal)
  No formal agenda.
  July 13–14: General Affairs Council

  Agenda 2000: Work programme.

  Moldova: Establishment of EU position for the 1st session of the Co-operation Council.

  Tunisia: Establishment of EU position for the 1st session of the Association Council EC/Tunisia.

  274

  Mexico: Establishment of EU position for the session of the Joint Council with Mexico.

  Albania: Preparation for the Conference on 21 July (possible item).

  Mediterranean policy (possible item).

  Switzerland (possible item).

  Western Balkans.

  Iran (possible item).

  Middle East Peace Process.

  Belarus (possible item).

  Euro XI.

  South Africa (possible item).

  Schengen (possible item).

  Co-operation Council with Moldova.

  Association Council with EU/Tunisia.

  Mexico Joint Council (possible item).

  July 17: Budget Council

  Draft 1999 budget.

  [other items may be added later].

  July 17–19: Environment Council (informal)
  No formal agenda.
  July 20–21: Agriculture Council
  Agenda not yet available.

  General Affairs Council
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 29 June.[49163]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Council approved the A Points in document 9835/98. The Council also noted the European Parliament Resolutions, Decisions and Opinions of its part sessions of 27–28 May, listed in document 8462/98. Copies of both documents will be placed in the Library as soon as they become available.

  The Council agreed a EU mandate for the negotiations on a new Lomé Convention due to open in September. It authorised the Commission to carry out the negotiations. All UK national objectives have been met including: making poverty eradication the primary objective; renewing the EU-ACP—African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries—partnership; streamlining development assistance to make it more efficient; and new trade arrangements which will be World Trade Organisation compatible and help ACP countries integrate into the world trading system. The Council agreed that Cuba should be accorded observer status in the negotiation process subject to strict political conditionality.

  The Council expressed concern about the tension on the ground in Kosovo. It called for full and immediate implementation of the undertakings given by President Milosevic to President Yeltsin on 16 June. The Council regretted Belgrade's refusal to accept an increase in the size of the European Community Monitoring Mission presence in Kosovo and reaffirmed its determination to provide an increased monitoring presence.

  The Council voiced its strong disappointment that the commitments made by President Milosevic in Moscow did not cover all the requirements set out in the Cardiff

  275
  Declaration, in particular the withdrawal of security units used for civilian repression; and that the conditions had not been created for rapid progress in the political dialogue with the Kosovar Albanian leadership, with international involvement.

  The Council reaffirmed the demand for the withdrawal by Belgrade of the security forces from Kosovo. All those in a leadership role in the Kosovar Albanian community should unite responsibly in making clear their commitment to dialogue and a peaceful resolution of the problems of Kosovo, and their rejection of violence and acts of terrorism. The EU remains firmly opposed to independence: it continues to support a special status, including a large degree of autonomy for Kosovo, within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  The Council welcomed the recent adoption by the Croatian parliament of a plan for return of refugees. It re-emphasised the EU's expectation that the Plan would be implemented immediately and in full. The Council confirmed the EU's willingness to participate in conference on reconstruction and development organised by the Croatian Government in the light of such implementation.

  The Council welcomed the positive reception in Bosnia and elsewhere for the 8 June Declaration and the launch of the EU/Bosnia Consultative Task Force (CTF). It looked forward to the first Sarajevo meeting of the CTF on 30 June, and to its contributing to the development of modern Bosnia.

  Ministers discussed the role of the General Affairs Council in preparing for the informal meeting of Heads of State and Government planned for the autumn. It was agreed that Ministers would discuss this in more detail in September. There was also a wide-ranging discussion of the need to review the working methods of the Council, and the overall coordinating role of the GAC, in particular in the context of Agenda 2000.

  The Council discussed the mandate for opening negotiations with Norway and Iceland over their future association with Schengen after the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. Good progress was made. Some points still remain to be settled; but agreement was reached on the main principles which should guide the EU in negotiations.

  On the bilateral negotiations between the EU and Switzerland, Ministers noted with satisfaction the Commission's assessment that significant progress had been made recently, particularly on the issues of free movement of people and agriculture. However, Ministers also noted that further work was needed to conclude a balanced overall agreement covering all the sectors under negotiation.

  Ministers discussed the situation in Belarus. They expressed strong disapproval of Belarusian action in removing Ambassadors from their residences at Drozdy. The EU stands ready to resume a dialogue with the Belarusian Government when the latter is ready to respect its international obligations. Further possible measures will be considered in response to the position taken by the Belarusian Government.
  276
  The Council reiterated its full support for the current US efforts in the Middle East Peace Process, while underlining the need for early action to bring them to fruition. It welcomed Palestinian acceptance of US ideas for relaunching negotiations on the Palestinian track, and called on Israel to give a clear and positive response to these ideas.

  The Council reiterated its deep concern at the Israeli Government's endorsement of plans which would extend the administrative boundaries and alter the demographic balance in the Jerusalem area. Unilateral acts only complicate the peace process at a very sensitive time. The EU's position is that the final status of Jerusalem should be determined in final status talks and that neither side should pre-empt this.

  The Council also adopted Conclusions on the recent Commission Communications on EC/Israel trade and regional cumulation of origin. The Council encouraged the Commission to pursue its technical talks with Israel on the problems identified in the first of these Communications, stressing that these should lead to concrete results. The Council recognised the contribution which the establishment of cumulation could play in promoting regional economic development and regional integration.

  The Council discussed the provision of extra project aid to Azerbaijan. Ministers agreed that increased aid should be provided using existing instruments.

  The Council welcomed progress at the first session of Burundi peace talks in Arusha. It urged all parties to return to the negotiations in July and hoped there would be sufficient progress in the negotiations for regional leaders to re-examine the sanctions they imposed in 1996.

  The Council reiterated its concern at the humanitarian situation in Sudan. It noted the substantial assistance provided by the EU over recent years, but noted also the urgent need for humanitarian assistance.

  The Council reaffirmed its support for efforts by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to promote long term peace through a negotiated settlement. The council welcomed the proposal that the IGAD Partnership Forum (IPF) send a mission at Ministerial level to Khartoum and Nairobi to explore the possibility of securing a break in the fighting in the areas most affected by hunger to allow for the provision of humanitarian aid.

  The Council expressed concern about the situation in Guinea Bissau. It called on both sides to reach a peaceful solution. It expressed support for mediation efforts undertaken by the Foreign Ministers of Portugal and Angola. It welcomed the efforts of ECHO and International organisations to provide humanitarian assistance and urged all concerned to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those who need it.

  Over dinner, the Troika and Commission debriefed Ministers from the Central European applicant countries and Cyprus on the discussions at the Cardiff European Council.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the percentage of crops grown in England in 2008 which will be genetically manipulated. [47168]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  It is too early to predict the extent to which such crops will be grown in England by the year 2008.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to undertake a consultation exercise on the introduction of genetically modified organisms. [47184]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are planning a public consultation over the next few months to explore the views of the public about genetic modification in more detail. The results from this will be carefully analysed and used to inform future policy in this area.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has recently had concerning proposals for CAP reform. [47169]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  As President of the EU Agriculture Council, I chaired on 2 June a seminar on environmental and consumer aspects of the CAP. On 22–25 June, I chaired the Agriculture Council which reached decisions on reforms to the olive oil, tobacco and the banana regimes. More generally, we have succeeded in successive Councils under the UK Presidency in mapping out a clear way forward on the Commission's wider Agenda 2000 proposals on CAP reform. Unanimous conclusions to this effect were agreed in May and endorsed by the Cardiff European Council.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the role of set aside in a reformed CAP. [47170]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government wish to see compulsory set-aside abolished as a means of controlling cereals production. However, we can support the continuation of voluntary set-aside, which can have environmental advantages.

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet farmers in north-west Leicestershire to discuss the progress achieved in CAP reform. [47174]

  Mr. Morley
  I have no plans at present to visit north-west Leicestershire.

  I regularly meet farmers' representatives from the regions to discuss all aspects of agricultural policy.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress made at the Agriculture Council on 25 and 26 May with regard to the reform of the common agricultural policy. [47180]

  Mr. Rooker
  The May Council agreed interim conclusions on the Commission's Agenda 2000 reform proposals which recognised the need for reform and set out the framework for the continuing negotiations.
  278
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the outcome of the 26 May Council in respect of CAP reform and Agenda 2000. [47166]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The May Council adopted interim conclusions on the Agenda 2000 proposals which accepted the need for CAP reform and set out the framework for the continuing negotiations on the Commission's proposals.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the date-based scheme associated with the lifting of the beef ban. [47172]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The European Commission issued its proposal for a Date-based Export Scheme on 10 June. This proposal was discussed by the Standing Veterinary Committee on 12 and 18 June. I expect the Standing Veterinary Committee to discuss the proposal again on 7 July.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to assist the UK beef industry to regain former export markets once the ban has been lifted. [47173]

  Mr. Rooker
  Once the ban is lifted, I and colleagues in MAFF and other Government Departments will take all possible steps to encourage the rebuilding of our beef export industry. It will be for the industry to spearhead the drive, but it will do so with full Ministerial participation.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects it to be possible to resume exports of beef. [47176]

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made on the lifting of the EU ban on the export of British beef. [47182]

  Mr. Rooker
  Exports of Northern Ireland Export Certified Herds Scheme beef have been permitted since 1 June. The Northern Ireland industry, in conjunction with the Government, have been working hard to regain former customers, as well as attracting new ones. The European Commission proposal for a Date-based Export Scheme, for the whole of the UK, is currently being considered by the Standing Veterinary Committee.

  Gangmasters
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on gangmasters. [47175]

  Mr. Rooker
  Further to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) on 9 June 1998,Official Report, columns 527–29, the drive to combat exploitative gangmasters continues. Joint enforcement operations are taking place and infringements found in operational visits are being investigated. The comprehensive leaflets on employment rights and obligations have been well received.

  Prices
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on prices for agricultural products for 1998–99. [47177]

  Mr. Morley
  Monthly Agricultural Price Indices and an Agricultural Market Report containing weekly prices are available in the Library of the House. On average, agricultural prices for the first four months of 1998 are 12 per cent. lower than a year earlier. This is due primarily to changing exchange rates and developments in the commodity markets.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to improve standards of animal welfare. [47178]

  Mr. Morley
  We continue to work to improve standards at EU and national level. In Europe, we gave priority under our Presidency to advancing negotiations on welfare standards for livestock on farms, and achieved agreement on an important new Directive at the June Agriculture Council: we also prevailed on the Commission to bring forward its overdue proposal on the welfare of laying hens, and wasted no time in opening negotiations on it. At home, we have various initiatives in hand and planned, including a forthcoming review of our rules on the welfare of livestock in transit and at market, now that our new transit rules have been in operation for a year.

  French Beef
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the French Minister for Agriculture about the quality and safety of French beef. [47179]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I chaired the Agriculture Council on 31 March when proposals for Community-wide controls on Specified Risk Materials were discussed and it was agreed to defer the introduction of the provisions of Decision 97/534 until 1 January 1999 and to invite the Commission to table a proposal after the OIE meeting which took place in May. The UK and France supported the introduction of controls on bovine offals and have, in the absence of agreed Community rules, both introduced national controls on this material in order to protect public and animal health.

  Quarantine
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress on examining alternatives to the quarantine laws. [47185]

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in seeking alternatives to quarantine. [47171]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Advisory Group on Quarantine (AGQ) is assessing the risk of the introduction of rabies into the UK under the current policy of quarantine for pet animals and under alternative policies. The Group is 280
  expected to report this summer or early autumn. A full public consultation on the options available will then be held.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average income of British farmers in the last financial year; and what average percentage of it was received in subsidies. [47181]

  Mr. Morley
  The latest year for which firm figures are available is 1996–97. The average net farm income for all types of full-time farms (excluding horticulture) is £24,600. Of this, an average of 95 per cent. came from direct subsidies.

  Flood Defence (Northampton)
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the flood defence and warning system for Northampton. [47183]

  Mr. Morley
  I recognise the severe and continuing effects of the Easter floods on the residents of Northampton, and elsewhere, which I have seen at first hand. On behalf of the Government, I extend my sympathy to all concerned.

  The Environment Agency is responsible for flood defence and warning systems. It has commissioned an Independent Review into the Easter floods. The final report of the Review Team is due by the end of September 1998. In the meantime, the Agency is taking a number of initiatives in Northampton. These measures include:

  preliminary works to raise existing defences;

  a detailed review of flood defence standards and identification of options for improvement;

  works to improve river flow and river level monitoring;

  temporary lowering of trigger levels for flood warnings with improved warning and dissemination arrangements, and

  revision of the Northamptonshire Flood Warning Plan.

  These initiatives are largely aimed at achieving improvements in advance of the coming winter and are being taken forward in consultation with the police, Borough and County Council and the Residents Associations as appropriate. Further actions may be required as a result of the recommendations in the Independent Review.

  Fish Prices
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will investigate the recent increase in the price of fish. [47857]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: On the basis of data collected by the Office for National Statistics, there is no evidence of recent significant rises in retail prices for fresh fish. But with UK processors relying heavily on imported supplies, prices for fish products are susceptible to changes in the supply situation on the world market. One of the key supply areas for cod and haddock for the UK is the Barents Sea, but supplies from this fishery have decreased significantly in 1998. This, together with a temporary reduction in world supplies of other whitefish, appears to be responsible for some

  281
  increase in price for processed fish. I do not, however, consider that further investigation is necessary at the moment.

  Fishermen (Landing Declarations)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what factors underlie the requirement that fishermen(a) complete a landing declaration and (b) produce a stamped sales note when landing fish; [48282]

  (2) for what reasons he withdrew the concession of submitting stamped sales notes for fishermen in Brixham; [48283]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the additional costs arising from the requirement placed on Brixham fishermen regarding landing declarations when landing fish in Brixham as against landing fish in other ports; [48284]

  (4) what reasons underlie the requirement that fishermen in Brixham complete a landing declaration. [48285]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93, as amended, requires the master of a Community fishing vessel of 10 metres or more in overall length, or his representative, to submit to the competent authorities within 48 hours of landing a
  282
  declaration giving, as a minimum, the quantities of each Total Allowable Catch (TAC) or quota species landed and the area where the fish were caught.

  Detailed rules for the completion of landing declarations are set out in Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2807/83, as amended. Article 2 of that Regulation provides that, if a landing takes place in a port of the Member State whose flag the vessel is flying or in which it is registered, another form specified by that Member State may be used provided it contains at least the information set out in Annex III (the landing declaration form). For this purpose, the Department has accepted stamped sales notes submitted on behalf of the master as an alternative to landing declarations.

  Recently, an agency responsible for submitting stamped sales notes in respect of landings made into Brixham has advised the Department that it is no longer able to certify that such sales notes represent the full amount of fish landed from any voyage. In view of this, the Department has advised the masters of vessels landing into Brixham that they must complete a landing declaration in the form set out in Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2807/83.

  A Compliance Cost Assessment completed in 1994 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93 identified the cost of completing and submitting a landing declaration as £3.75.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

National Lottery Act,

Public Interest Disclosure Act,

Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act,

National Institutions Measure.

Child Benefit
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to discourage couples in receipt of a joint income of over £200,000 per annum from claiming child benefit.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are committed to retaining universal child benefit where it is universal now because it is the fairest and most efficient way of recognising the extra costs and responsibilities borne by all parents.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that neither the Answer he has just given nor the one given in the debate on Monday give any comfort at all to those who feel that scarce social security money should go to those really in need and not those who are quite rich enough to manage without it? Can he not see that it is quite wrong if a woman is earning a top barrister's salary and her husband is perhaps a Cabinet Minister—or the other way round—that they should draw child benefit? Ought that not to be stopped?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Baroness is thinking along the same lines as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In another place he said,
"It must be right in principle that if Child Benefit is raised in future then there is a case for higher rate taxpayers paying tax on it".
There are clearly arguments for and against, but it is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to maintain the principle of separate taxation of married women's incomes? Will he confirm that if that is the case the
824
sums to be raised from taxing child benefit are nugatory? Will he further confirm that the costs of any other form of discouragement, as recommended in this Question, might be so great as to make the measure short of cost-effective?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can confirm that the Government are committed to maintaining separate taxation for married couples. Under no circumstances will a woman's income be added to her husband's, unless they wish it. As regards the value of taxing child benefit, that depends on the tax position of the people concerned. If we assume that people are paying the standard rate of tax, and if child benefit is taxed at the present rate, it could raise something in the region of £700 million.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that child benefit replaced child tax allowances? Will he confirm that if child benefit were withdrawn it would be only equitable that child tax relief should be restored to those from whom it was withdrawn?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, there is no question of child benefit being withdrawn.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that no one could reasonably disagree with his suggestion that there are two views: first, that it is absurd to provide people on very high incomes with state benefits, and, secondly, the opposite view? Which side do the Government come down on?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government's policy is to direct the benefit towards the child rather than to the family set-up. Child benefit is one of the most efficient ways of targeting children because over 98 per cent. of child benefit is taken up.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is of course right of the Chancellor to maintain separation for tax purposes? But is there not a clear case for taxing joint family income—therefore at the highest rate—for the family on child benefit? If we do not believe in means tests—which I do not—surely that is the only way to deal with the principle underlying the noble Baroness's Question.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sure that is a point which my right honourable friend the Chancellor is taking into consideration.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister's original Answer, which referred to benefit being universal, begs the question of whether or not that universal benefit is taxed. He will know from the debate which took place on Monday, to which my noble friend referred, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, spent some time explaining that the Chancellor's position on this issue was to sit on the fence, and, as far as one can see, to sit on the fence indefinitely. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. That may be comfortable

825
or not comfortable for the Chancellor—I am not worried about that—but I am worried that it leaves many prudent parents with families uncertain as to how to plan ahead because they do not know what the Government will do. These issues are not terribly complex; the arguments on both sides are fairly straightforward. It is high time that the Chancellor made up his mind, and I hope the Minister will encourage him to do so.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor has made up his mind so far as his commitment to families is concerned. The Government have decided to provide extra help for all families, with an increase of £2.50 in the standard rate of child benefit for eldest children from April 1999. There is more help for the youngest and poorest children. The matter raised by the noble Lord is being considered by the Chancellor. He will make his decision in his own time.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the fairest way of tackling the problem of high income families receiving child benefit while avoiding the problems of taxing child benefit or undermining separate taxation for men and women is simply to tax higher incomes slightly more—for instance, a 50p top rate for those earning £100,000 a year? That would, even if untargeted, be a fairer approach and would avoid the problems.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am well aware of the views of the noble Baroness's party on taxation. The level of taxation is a matter for the Chancellor, not a matter for me.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how many married couples there are with children qualifying for child benefit who have a joint income of £200,000 or more? I should have thought they were rather thin on the ground. But perhaps I am living in a kind of deflated past.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I have a very full brief in front of me; however, it does not include that figure. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.

English Tourist Board
3.14 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they are considering abolishing the English Tourist Board.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review every department has been required to look critically at whether the best possible use is being made of public money. Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are
826
looking at all aspects of the department's work and that of its sponsored bodies, including the English Tourist Board. No final decisions have yet been made.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I welcome the fact that for the moment there are no definite plans to abolish the English Tourist Board. Does the Minister feel that the Government have the balance right, when grant-in-aid to the Scottish Tourist Board is nearly £5 per head and to the Welsh Tourist Board £6, but only 25p. per head to the English Tourist Board?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, although I answer for the whole Government, when I am asked about the English Tourist Board I do not prepare myself in relation to the other departments to which the noble Lord referred. His facts are right. They reflect the priorities that the Scottish Office and Welsh Office place on tourism in their areas. That is their right.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if the English Tourist Board is to continue, does my noble friend agree that the approach must be to provide it with a reasonably level playing field? Is the situation not ridiculous when it is not even competing in the same league? Surely, if the board is to continue, which I hope it will, it should receive adequate funding similar to that being provided in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I acknowledged in response to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, it is certainly the case that there are great differences between the different countries within Great Britain. Expenditure by tourists in England, at £440 per head of population, is very much the same as it is in the other countries. To that extent my noble friend's fears are somewhat exaggerated.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, given the amount of assistance that the tourist trade provides to this country's balance of payments, would it not be the height of folly to get rid of the English Tourist Board?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the tourist industry in this country is enormously important to our economy. I acknowledge that straightaway. The department is by no means neglecting tourism as part of its functions, even though the word "tourism" has been left out of its title.
What the Government can do for tourism includes not only the work of the national tourist boards but also of the British Tourist Authority and the regional tourist boards, as well as the English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland tourist boards. The noble Lord should look at the whole range of government services to the tourist industry.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some of our representatives abroad who are trying to promote English tourism are seriously hampered by the fact that they have so little money to

827
spend compared to other European countries, which spend a great deal of money in this country on their tourism?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the budget for the British Tourist Authority is that which was left to this Government by the previous government and which we determined to continue. It is true that there are differences. However, there are possibilities: for example, greater efficiencies and economies through co-operation between the British Tourist Authority and the British Council in many parts of the world.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, with the forthcoming devolution of tourist interests to Scotland and Wales and to the rural development agencies, there is an ever-increasing need for co-ordination? If the regional development boards have separate tourist policies, as may well happen, it could do great damage to tourism nationally.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. When we see the final form of the devolution Bills and the Bill for the regional development agencies, I am sure that Ministers will agree with the noble Lord that that will have an effect on the operations and ethos of the British Tourist Authority. We have that very much in mind.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the admirable support for London which the Government are showing, taken together with the rumoured abolition of the English Tourist Board, might lead one to believe that the rest of country was being ignored? Can he give us an undertaking that in future government policy equal attention will be paid to the rest of the country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly not fall into the trap of welcoming the noble Viscount's comments about our admirable support for London. That will lead the other regions to feel that they are being neglected. The noble Viscount asks me to say whether I have stopped beating my wife.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the English Tourist Board came into existence because of a Back-Bench revolt in the then Labour Government as a result of their neglect of the English dimension? Does he consider that perhaps the Government are running the risk of ensuring that they make history repeat itself?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for his lessons in history. Since I have already said that no decisions have been taken about the sponsored bodies of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I do not think that I can answer his further supposition.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that however energetic tourist boards may be, the main difficulty facing the industry is the price in our hotels?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, tourism is one of those industries where the fundamental provision
828
for accommodation is in the private sector. It is true that prices in hotels have been higher in this country than in the past, but the English Tourist Board is recording a welcome increase in the number of budget hotels. We have a remarkable range of bed-and-breakfast accommodation which is not equalled by many other countries of which I am aware.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, as a supplementary question to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, will the Minister be kind enough to consider looking in Hansard at the proceedings in Standing Committee E on 18th March 1969 on the Development of Tourism Bill? The then Minister of State at the Board of Trade, who is now a Member of your Lordships' House, made a concession to cross-party views—from England, Scotland and Wales—to establish an English Tourist Board. He persuaded the Treasury that it was a right, wise and proper thing to do. If the noble Lord looks at that report, he may find that very good arguments were deployed by the Minister of State at that time for continuing the board as it now is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, was not the Minister of State at that time a Mr. W.T. Rodgers? I am grateful to him for his history lesson.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, in the answer given by the Minister, he tended to imply that the responsibilities of the English Tourist Board, the British Tourist Authority and the regional tourism boards are identical. They are not. They have quite specific responsibilities. Does he agree that there is a great responsibility on the Government to ensure that our seaside resorts are looked after? They depend on tourism. The Minister will also remember that it was the Opposition, when in government, who over 10 years reduced the grant to the English Tourist Board from £29 million to now just under £5 million?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House is very much indebted to all noble Lords for the history lessons. If I implied that the role of the different bodies was identical, I apologise. I did not mean to. I meant, of course, that they are complementary.

Fair Rent Increases and Investment
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the publication on 21st May of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions' consultation paper Limiting Fair Rent Increases, what estimate they have made of the impact of these proposals on future investment in the private rented residential sector.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we see no reason why, once they are properly understood, our proposals for limiting fair rents should affect future

829
investment in the private rented residential sector. As our consultation paper makes clear, the proposals do not apply to tenancies established since January 1989, for which landlords can charge market rents. The paper confirms that we have no plans to amend the legislative framework for those tenancies.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Has she seen the research report of June 1998 of the British Property Federation? It shows that more than half the commercial property industry doubts the Government's statements that they have no intention to extend rent control beyond the fair rent sector. I quote from the report:
"Those who had experienced the 'bad times' of regulation in the past were more negative".
It is does not need me to remind the House that that was in the days of a Labour government. Is it not a fact that the only sources of substantial investment to enlarge the private rented sector are the investing property companies and financial institutions? The Government claim to wish to encourage that investment. Are the proposals on limiting fair rent increases at best not just a discouragement and at worst a positive disincentive to further investment by the private rented sector?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness raised the issue of the British Property Federation report. It suggests that those institutions looking to invest in the private rented sector are much less concerned about our proposals than those not looking to invest. I am confident that those who have a closer interest in the future of the sector are sophisticated enough to recognise that our proposals do not apply to the deregulated tenancies. We have given assurances that we have no plans to make changes to the legislative framework in that sector of the market.
The noble Baroness's second question gives me an opportunity to say that I am happy to reaffirm that the Government have no plans to amend the legislative framework for assured shorthold tenancies under the Housing Act 1988.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, how long are the rent registrations intended to last? If re-registration is to be allowed after, say, two years, the increases of only 5 per cent. plus RPI will go up fairly rapidly on a cumulative basis in quite a short time.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the proposed limit on the rent increase at the first re-registration after the legislation has come into force would be RPI plus 10 per cent. for two years. The landlord could not normally increase the rent for the tenancy for a further two years. After two years, if he wanted to increase the rent again, he or the tenant could apply to the rent officer for a new rent re- registration. The proposed limit for the rent increase at the second registration would be RPI plus 5 per cent. For each subsequent re-registration, the rent increase would be limited to RPI plus 5 per cent. The objective of the
830
proposal is to allow fair rents to move closer to market rents, but at a slower pace than would have been the case had those limits not applied.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, in responding to the consultation paper and as there will be a review of the housing benefit, will the Minister be mindful of the real problem facing our young people, particularly those under 25, in finding accommodation in the private rented sector? Many believe that the changes that we have had in housing benefit for single room rents have had a dreadful effect on the ability of young people to find accommodation in the private rented sector.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am certain that these issues will be raised and fully considered during the comprehensive spending review.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when we had a form of rent control in the past, it meant that the private rented sector dried up? As we have a fair rents policy, when does a fair rent become unfair, if the limit is exceeded?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, that is the purpose of the application for proper objective consideration of what would be a reasonable rent. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that this Government's policy is committed to ensuring that housing is available for all who need it in the most appropriate way possible.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that certain decisions of the courts two or three years ago resulted in the pre-1987 tenancy rents going up at an extremely steep rate which caused great difficulty to people on fixed incomes, particularly the elderly? Does she agree also that there is a real need for limitations to be placed on fair rents in order to achieve the balance between a fair investment for landlords and a fair rent for tenants?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, yes.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it seems odd that a government consultation document should suggest that fair rents, fixed by highly respected and well qualified rent officers, are unfair because of the perceived effects on certain tenants on fixed incomes? Furthermore, is it true that that perceived unfairness has a good deal to do with the cost to the public purse in terms of assistance with rents through housing benefit?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, rent officers and committees will still determine a fair rent under Section 70 of the Rent Act 1977. Where the determined rent is within the ceiling imposed by the RPI formula, that will be the new registered rent. It is a

831
complex issue and I stress to the noble Earl that we welcome all detailed observations forming part of the consultation.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I am afraid that in recent days we have been in the habit of leaving only six minutes for the last Question. We should move on.

Partnership for Peace Programme
3.33 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale The Earl of Lauderdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to support NATO's reported "Partnership for Peace" programme in Kosovo; and whether they intend to contribute troops or aircraft to this project.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, NATO has no Partnership for Peace programme with Kosovo, an area in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The UK is contributing to work in NATO on military options to support the current diplomatic initiative. Those options include Partnership for Peace exercises with the neighbouring countries of Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. We will be contributing land and air forces to the exercise for peace support operations in Macedonia in September. We also intend to participate in the exercise for peace support and humanitarian assistance in Albania in August.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which comes partly as a relief to all of us. However, can he say whether the ethnic Albanians are thought to be legitimate subjects of Yugoslavia or illegal immigrants?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, they are part of the Republic of Yugoslavia. But, as the noble Earl is aware, there are immense difficulties and danger there. I repeat that at the moment we are trying to bring about a solution by peaceful and diplomatic means. However, NATO is prepared for any option that is required if those efforts fail.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, with the conflict escalating dangerously, can the Minister inform the House specifically whether, in the Government's view, NATO military intervention in Kosovo could take place without new UN resolutions?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the position is that we are attempting to bring about a settlement by diplomatic means. If those means fail and Belgrade does not meet the demands, there will be moves for further measures, including some that may require the authorisation of a United Nations Security Council resolution. It is clear
832
that not all the measures would require such a resolution. In any event, we will require proper legal authority for whatever we do in that area.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, one of the lessons of Bosnia is that early intervention would have saved a great many lives and left less of a legacy of bitterness. Can the noble Lord assure us that the Government are treating this with rather more urgency than is suggested when one talks about the possibility of taking part in an exercise in September?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, of course. The main point is that we are attempting to bring about a solution, I repeat, by diplomatic means. The next meeting of the Contact Group takes place in Bonn on 8th July. As the Contact Group includes Russia, we will consider at that meeting what are the next steps to take. Our aim is always to support and encourage dialogue between all sides and the focus must be that that dialogue is brought about by diplomatic efforts. However, if at the end of the day those efforts fail, no options have been ruled out and at this stage NATO continues to review all the options.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the Government agree with the view of Mr. Richard Holbrook that it is unrealistic to expect Serbia to withdraw its security forces from Kosovo. Would it not be better if ourselves and other countries in NATO stopped treating Serbia as an international pariah and instead tried to help it to solve the real difficulties in Kosovo? They will not be solved so long as the Kosovo Liberation Army is encouraged to think that NATO will help it to take over Kosovo.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we are not trying to achieve an independent state; we are seeking more autonomy and to bring about a stable democratic region. That is why we are working through diplomatic measures and hope that they are successful. However, we have reserve powers if those fail.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does not the key to this matter lie in persuading President Yeltsin to use his influence on President Milosevic to make absolutely clear that if the Serbians stop killing Albanians in Kosovo, the Russians would, if necessary, support a new UN mandate? That is the key. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made on that front?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the position is that at the last Contact Group meeting we laid down several demands. Russia was part of the group laying down those terms. The US and the Russians have been working together for six months in the Contact Group. The Contact Group provides a focus for international activity. The next step is the meeting on 8th July when the situation will be reviewed and consideration will be given as to what further steps should be taken.

Finance (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 34 [School changing from one category to another]:
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Changes of category of school]:
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Governing bodies]:
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 32, line 18, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body),").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 91, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108 to 114 inclusive.
As I said at Committee stage, I was most disappointed with the reply of the Minister. I found it extremely sad that, having said throughout the Bill that she sees it as being about standards and not structures, she felt unable to accept this simple but important amendment. The Minister talks repeatedly about flexibility. Sadly, there has not been much evidence of that so far.
I remind your Lordships of what the amendment involves. There are many schools in a similar situation to the one I mentioned. My interest is that it concerns the church school attached to the church where my husband and I were married. It is a school of excellence and one where parents wanting the best are anxious that their children become pupils.
The school has been administered by a single governing body, probably since Elizabethan times; certainly for more than 150 years. The school caters for infants and junior pupils and, because of its success, outgrew its site. It was therefore forced into locating the junior department to a site half a mile away. In reality it continues as one school on two sites. Continuity has been an essential ingredient throughout the years and its attachment to the parish church has been a much-valued focal point in the area. Further changes are possible as there is parental pressure for a three form entry.
The chairman of the governors tells me that the board is deeply concerned about the Bill as it would disallow the way that it has organised this school for centuries. The governors fear that with two boards administration
834
costs would escalate and there would be duplication in many areas. They also worry that there could be conflict and that the two boards would drift apart.
There are other matters which concern them. At present any child who enters at nursery stage is given the right of admission through to the end of junior school. Certain monies administered by the governors for capital projects at both schools are administered as one. They fear that they would have to set up a foundation to cater for such funds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is quite rightly keen that parent governors should have the opportunity to serve, but there is one point that I should have raised at Committee stage and it is this. A parent is mainly interested in a school for the time that his or her child is a pupil at it. A child is in the infant school for only three years, so the usual term as a parent governor is three years. I can assure the noble Baroness that this school does not, as she suggested, spend a disproportionate amount of its time on day-to-day site management and related issues. The governors are concerned with the long-term future of this school and policies for the future. It is the head teacher who organises the school. It is a comparatively small school on two sites, and a three-year term does not therefore lean towards forward planning but to immediate action.
For all those reasons I hope that I have persuaded the noble Baroness to look favourably upon this amendment and, in so doing, support the sterling work being done by willing volunteers. It should be allowed to continue, as it has done so successfully for centuries. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I was not present when we debated this amendment in Committee. Some 25 years ago, among other things, I first became a school governor of a group of seven primary schools, each with the same governing body. Back in those days if a governors' meeting lasted more than an hour, the chair was deemed to be doing badly. Most of that hour was taken up with the time that it took successive heads to get from the classroom door, to sit down, tell us how long the fire drill had taken and get out again.
I am now the governor of just one of those schools, which is a junior school, on a different site from its infant school and with a separate governing body. I have no doubt which is better. The situation we now have is infinitely better. My own personal preference would be almost always to have a separate governing body. That is the norm and will continue to be so. However, I wonder why the Government are insisting in all cases there shall be separate governing bodies. I have read the Minister's reply to this point, but I am still not convinced that it was necessary for us to dictate from the centre what shall happen under any circumstances with each governing body.
If I remember rightly, the Minister spoke of the need to encourage more parent governors—I entirely support that—but that in itself does not preclude having a single governing body. It must be possible to increase parent governor representation on a governing body if it is felt desirable—although, in my experience, all too often parents are not clamouring to be governors.

835
The other laudable desire was that the governing body should concentrate more on driving up standards than on administrative matters, site management and so on. That is also desirable. In my experience, site management is often of more interest not only to governors but to staff. It is also delegated to a sub-committee of the main governing board. Again, why should one preclude the other?
I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. At this stage I feel that the Government are being unnecessarily proscriptive. I was accused on Tuesday of wishing to centralise. This is far more centralising than anything I was suggesting. It would be more appropriate to leave it to governing bodies and the appropriate LEA to decide for themselves where, in exceptional circumstances, it is more appropriate, desirable and agreed by all concerned that there should be a single governing body.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, when we considered these amendments during Committee the main argument in favour of retaining group governing bodies was that, where two schools wanted to be managed by one governing body, they should be allowed to do so. We have heard this again from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe.
It misses the point of what governing bodies are there to do. They are not there to manage schools. There is a distinction to be made between governance and day-to-day management. Where that distinction is not well understood governing bodies are in danger of treading on the toes of head teachers and their professional staffs by getting too deeply involved in day-to-day management issues.
The National Association of Head Teachers, which represents the majority of primary school heads, has told us that it would be extremely concerned by the re-introduction of group governing bodies as provided for by these amendments. Many LEAs have told us that they support our proposals for each school to have its own dedicated governing body.
Governing bodies are there to promote higher standards and provide accountability for the school's performance. They should be looking at the strategic direction that the school should be taking. Group governing bodies detract from that purpose in relation to individual schools. Governing bodies have always found it easier to deal with issues such as sites and buildings than with the substance of education. They often feel more comfortable with those issues. I too have been a governor—although rather a long time ago—and I remember that too much time tended to get taken up with those sort of problems.
That seems to be particularly true with group governing bodies. They tend to be on shared sites, and buildings and facilities rather than the substance of education, standards of teaching and learning, all too often dominate. Continuing with a system of grouping runs the risk of diverting governing bodies from their main purpose.
836
We have a genuine desire to strengthen the rights of parents and to increase the accountability of the governing bodies, as I think the noble Baroness recognises. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, certainly did. We have also listened carefully to the arguments being made in favour of retaining group governing bodies. I do not recall anyone suggesting that the existence of group governing bodies would enable them to meet those aims. We believe that such arrangements are inconsistent with those aims because they blur the lines of accountability and reduce the influence of parents on the governing body. Increasing the influence of parents is a manifesto commitment. We see it as a key to raising standards because parents have the most at stake.
We cannot consider the retention of group governing bodies just as a neutral act. It would mean a significant reduction in parental influence at each individual school within a group. Although perhaps it is possible that the number of parents on a governing body in a group school might be increased, there is no way that that can be assured.
Perhaps one reason why the campaign to preserve group governing bodies has not been led by the parents of pupils at the schools involved is that they would like to be better represented. Moreover, we really have not heard a single persuasive argument to suggest that the benefits of operating within a group governing body can only be preserved by legislation. That is the nub of what I want to say.
I appreciate the comments that have been made about the retention of group governing bodies in those limited circumstances where a junior and infants school share the same site, although I do not believe that to be so in the case that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, is raising. But whether it is the case or not, we do not believe that the difficulties that have been described are insuperable. It will be perfectly possible under the new governors' framework to arrange for some cross-representation across two governing bodies where previously there was only one. There will continue to be provision for governing body committees to include non-members. Indeed, if there were a significant issue of common concern, there is no reason why two governing bodies or their respective committees should not meet together to discuss it. That would be a sensible solution. But, quite frankly, many of the day-to-day management issues involved should be worked out jointly by the head teachers, and usually are. They ought not to be ducking those responsibilities by expecting a joint governing body to sort them out for them. We cannot overlook the fact that a number of positive benefits would be lost if we continued to permit group governing bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, set out very clearly the disadvantages of having group governing bodies.
We think that every school should have its own governing body to oversee the drive to improve standards and to provide a clear line of accountability. Such a governing body will have more direct responsibility for its school's performance and will be able to exercise its responsibility more effectively because the governing body can focus on just one school. It will also benefit from full parental representation rather than the diluted terms which

837
I believe would inevitably apply to group governing bodies. In the light of that answer, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she appreciate that many of the governors are either experts or are trained and become experts in particular areas, such as accountancy, management and so on? If a governor has those skills, surely those skills should be spread as widely as possible, perhaps over two schools rather than being confined to one.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief contribution on the basis of an experience I have had in this area. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, was saying that having group governing bodies is an innovation. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I did not think that she was saying that. As a former education officer, I had to administer such a scheme. I remember that the education committee—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, for my noble friend's benefit, perhaps I may clarify that at Report stage it is not allowable to make a speech after the Minister has sat down. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, asked my noble friend a question before she had sat down. That is the only way in which we could have an additional debate.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. I am not sure that I entirely understood it, but I think he was suggesting that where one has governors with expertise—perhaps accountants—it would be desirable if they could serve more than one school. There is nothing to stop an individual who happens to have an interest in more than one school to be on two separate governing bodies, although, on the whole, I think it is a good idea for people to be governors of a single school and take the duties that are associated with being the governor of a single school very seriously and have the loyalty that is necessary. I think there are enough people around, including those who have the kind of expertise to which the noble Lord referred, who are willing voluntarily to give their time to this enormously important job.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, what would be the problem of making such a small exception as this? This has worked well for centuries, probably since Elizabethan times. If it was a school that was not successful, I could understand what the noble Baroness is saying. But when it is such a centre of excellence that people want to live nearby and get their children into the school, it seems to be a great pity that the school is not allowed to proceed in this way. What would be the problem with that?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness started to get into making a new point rather than asking
838
a simple question. I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said. I have made the position quite clear. The Government believe that it is better for each school to have its own governing body to which the teachers and the head—the professional staff—are accountable and on which parents in that school, each of them separately, can be represented.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am more than disappointed with that reply. I should like to test the feelings of the House.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 91.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ludford, B.

Ailsa, M.

McNair, L.

Ampthill, L.

Maddock, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Attlee, E.

Mersey, V.

Avebury, L.

Methuen, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Beloff, L.

Munster, E.

Blatch, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Bowness, L.

Naseby, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Newby, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Norfolk, D.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ogmore, L.

Calverley, L.

Pender, L.

Carrick, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Chesham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Coleridge, L.

Pym, L.

Crag of Radley, L.

Quinton, L.

Cross, V.

Rawlings, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Russell, E.

Denham, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Sandberg, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Ellenborough, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Falkland, V.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Gainford, L.

Stockton, E.

Gisborough, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hamwee, B.

Swinfen, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Taverne, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hooper, B.

Tope, L.

Ironside, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jopling, L.

Vivian, L.

Kenyon, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Warnock, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Leigh, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Liverpool, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

839

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Levy, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lytton, E.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Borrie, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Burlison, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dearing, L.

Northbourne, L.

Desai, L.

Orme, L.

Dixon, L.

Paul, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Puttnam, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Fitt, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rix, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sewel, L.

Grenfell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hacking, L.

Simon, V.

Hardie, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Stallard, L.

Hayman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ilchester, E.

Weatherill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jeger, B.

Winston, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.4 p.m.
Schedule 9 [Constitution of governing bodies]:
[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 93A:
Page 148, line 36, at end insert—
("Minor Authority Governor
. In this Schedule, "minor authority governor" means a governor appointed by the town or parish council or parish meeting which covers the locality of any community primary school, any voluntary controlled primary school or any voluntary aided primary school.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 94A, 96A and 97A. Probably the largest postbag that we have had on this Bill has been concerned with these amendments. One of the strongest community
840
links at local level in every hamlet, village and small town in this country is through the parish councils, parish meetings and the local primary schools.
When these amendments were debated at Committee stage I took every single point that was made by the Minister. In tabling these amendments I hope that I have addressed all the concerns that the Government had. I expect that my noble friend Lady Byford will speak to this amendment. She made a powerful case in Committee. The points put forward by the Government do not resonate in the countryside at all. Indeed, the number of letters that we have had since the Minister replied in Committee give me a very strong feeling that there is little agreement with the points made.
We have dealt with the issue of consultation by the LEAs. I accept that the Government will strongly exhort local authorities, when seeking governors, to consult with district, town and parish councils and parish meetings. We are grateful for that.
The Government produced amendments of their own which suggested that schools could choose whether or not they had a parish councillor representative. They also made the point that no distinction exists between primary and secondary schools. The noble Baroness will notice that I have made that distinction since I believe that the strongest link is with primary schools. Some of the arguments of the Government as regards secondary schools have some force. The local secondary school near to my home in Cambridgeshire has about 1,800 children and covers many parishes. Therefore, I can understand the difficulty.
I have dealt with the issue of foundation schools raised by the Minister when we last spoke. I have also resolved which parish council shall be represented. It will be the parish council in whose area the school is situated. That is covered by my amendment.
I have made it very easy for the Government to do what they proclaim; namely, to accept, where it is consistent with government policy, the will of the people. This is very much the will of the people. The associations representing all parish councils and parish meetings feel strongly that this is an issue about which the Government should be responsive. They also believe that the link at local level between the parish councils, parish meetings and town councils and their local primary schools is such a strong one that it plays very much into another strand of government policy, which is partnership. In the main they are apolitical and supportive almost to the point of being obsessive about the health, wealth and progress of the local primary school. I believe that the case is unarguable. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, the last time we debated this subject was in the early hours of the morning. I must have been feeling particularly tired because I was probably particularly rude to the Minister. I have not changed my view. I said at the time that I thought the Minister's answer was rather mean spirited. I still think that. We had a long debate on the subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has reiterated how many people concerned with parish councils and those

841
who live in rural areas care about their right to have representation on governing bodies. They have had that in the past. It is an issue on which we have had the most representations from a wide variety of people.
I am at a loss to understand why the Minister is so against the provision. We have heard much from the Government about devolution of power, involving as many people as we can in decisions, and, as regards the education field, pushing up standards and consulting widely. The amendment goes to the heart of that aim. I am at a loss to understand why the Government cannot accept it. Parish councils up and down the country are in touch with their local communities. That is the main argument. They bring necessary information to the governing body. We heard earlier today from the Minister how important it was for each school to have its own governing body. It is even more important that that governing body has a representative from the parish council.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch. I listened with interest to what the Minister said. My noble friend highlighted the need to have parish representation as of right. I stressed that factor when we debated the matter in Committee. In the main, parish councils are apolitical. They represent their local communities. Since we debated the issue recently in the early hours of the morning, I have been lobbied again by people living in rural areas. The position is even more acute in rural areas than in towns.
I hope that the Minister will allow the amendment. It is extremely important to schools and local councils. The right they have at present will be severed. It will be discretionary as to whether they have a nominated place. It is important to preserve the links that exist now; and especially in rural villages.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, asked me—I was a little sleepy at that hour of the morning—what happened if there was no parish council but a parish meeting. I indicated that I would bring the matter back at the next stage. My thoughts were confirmed by the Minister: that the Government wished that those people would be included; that the place was not just for parish councils but could be extended to parish meetings.
We on these Benches are strongly in favour of inclusion; we should not exclude people. I hope that the new amendment will encourage the Minister to accept the provision. In Committee the Minister accepted the strength of feeling among the minor authorities about the Government's proposals to withdraw their right to appoint school governors. The noble Baroness also recognised that,
"not all LEAs are equally diligent about appointing LEA nominees to governing bodies".
She went on to say that,
"We believe that these matters are more appropriate for guidance on good practice rather than legislation".—[Official Report, 1/6/98: col. 153.]
She spoke later of strong encouragement to LEAs.
842
While we welcome such strong support, we do not think that it is enough. In reply to the debate at Committee stage, the Minister said:
"The issue of size of the governing body is not crucial to the argument".
If that is so, if the Minister recognises the strong feeling about retaining the position reiterated again today, I hope that she will support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I support the amendment. An important issue, in particular in village life, is that the school should do well and be well supported. The parish council, or the minor authority, should have a right, and not just a hope, to appoint a governor. Guidelines or good practice will not give them that right even though the representatives are almost always appointed region by region or village by village. Those people feel that it is their school and that they have a right to be represented. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Byford and remind the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of her letter in which she said how conscious she was of the strength of local feeling. I declare an interest as president (unpaid of course) of the Essex Association of Local Councils. I have received many letters. They underline the fact that parish councils are normally non-political. If there is a problem in the village school, nearly everyone knows a parish councillor. That parish councillor may have a child at the school. The village has a representative to whom the parents can go so that whatever may be going wrong in the school can be put right. The parish councils believe that they should have a right to representation on village school bodies. I hope that the Minister will see her way clear to allowing the amendment which I believe will be extremely popular.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Great concern has been shown over the loss of the current arrangement whereby the local parish council can have representation on the primary school governing body. A key role is played by schools in the communities. The distribution of schools is likely to correspond closely to the parish area. The Government have stated that they wish to enhance community life. That is enhanced by strong links between primary schools and the most local level of government. The present arrangements work well and involve little criticism. Local councillors are only too willing to commit their time and energy to playing their part in the management of those local schools. Since they are local councillors, they know the people involved.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am sorry that the amendment is moved by the Opposition Benches because I believe that it may well make the Government resist it more strongly than otherwise.
It is an important amendment. It involves the current trend of urbanisation of the countryside. The Countryside March was about a similar trend. It is about

843
people in the countryside being put under the control of officials who do not understand the countryside or village communities. It is the greatest possible pity to sever the links between village and village school, and between the parish and village school. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the position.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, I, too, express my support for the amendment. I declare an interest as chairman of a small primary school in rural Wales.
When school inspections take place—we have just gone through such an inspection, I am pleased to say emerging with flying colours—one of the questions addressed is the link between school and community. Inspectors consider the relationship. The fact that there is a member from the minor authority is most important.
I believe that there is a small error in the amendment. In Wales the minor authorities are referred to as community councils and I do not see that referred to in the Bill although I believe that the Bill refers to Wales as well as England and Scotland.
Lord Feversham: My Lords, I should declare a few interests. I am a parish councillor. I am president of all three of the Yorkshire associations of local councils. I am president of the National Association of Local Councils and of the Welsh local councils. It will not amaze or stun noble Lords that I followed closely the arguments at Committee stage and in particular those advanced by the Government.
I am the first to acknowledge that at Committee stage the Government moved in a "rightish" direction as far as concerned local councils. Do the Government recognise that however they dress it up in the Bill as it stands now, a much valued statutory right to nominate a person to sit on the governing body of a primary school in the community is removed? However they try to dress it up they cannot avoid that. That causes a great deal of grief, distress and unhappiness in communities and local councils. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, Amendment No. 93A adds an additional category of governor—minor authority governor—to the list of categories set out in Schedule 9. It would require such a governor to be included on the governing bodies of all community, voluntary-aided and controlled primary schools. The definition which does not refer to district councils is rather narrower than the definition of "minor authority" brought forward by the Government at Lords Committee stage. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, that the definition omits community councils in Wales, which may cause consternation to those bodies. I do not believe that as it is now drafted the amendment will apply to those councils.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that in tabling this amendment today, this time she had drawn a distinction between primary and secondary schools. I entirely accept that. She also said that she had dealt with the issue of foundation schools. She went on to say that the issue of deciding which parish councillor should sit on a primary school governing body where there were several parishes in the catchment area of the school
844
would be decided by the simple device of choosing a councillor from the parish in which the school was located. In considering this amendment in advance that was not quite how I or my officials interpreted it. However, I understand what the noble Baroness says.
To require schools to consider only the parish in which the school is located may not necessarily cover the parish council in which the majority of the children reside. That may often be the case. Where a school is situated is largely an historical accident. Where schools have amalgamated, as sometimes happens, particularly in a large village or perhaps a small town, the school with the largest site is often the one that is chosen to be the new school. One may find that pupils are drawn from a different parish. That may lead to difficulties.
I turn to the nub of the issue. Apparently parish and town councils are unhappy that they will not have automatic nomination rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to the heavy lobbying that had taken place outside the House. I acknowledge that that has happened. The Government have also been lobbied. We are aware of the strength of feeling. But it is important to recognise that this heavy lobbying is being conducted by a single interest group: the minor authorities themselves. If we look at the number of pupils affected in the areas with parish or town councils, these vociferous interest groups seek a disproportionate voice. An overwhelming number of primary pupils are at schools in areas that are served by neither parish nor town councils. It may be said that this is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Is she saying that there should be dictatorship of the majority and that no consideration should be given to these minority communities?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course I am not saying that. If the noble Lord had waited I would have told him of the Government's view about the best way to deal with the matter. However, we do not believe that the right way to deal with it is by accepting these amendments.
We recognise the benefits that community involvement through minor authority representation can bring. We plan to emphasise those benefits. We will specifically consult the National Council of Local Authorities about the wording of this part of our guidance to ensure that its views are fully taken into account over the presentation of the case for including a minor authority nominee. We believe that that is a more appropriate approach than what is proposed in statute by these amendments. There is no comparison between the responsibilities LEAs hold as funders and guardians of educational standards and those of minor authorities, even in those cases where minor authorities are able to provide some funding for specific purposes as I recognise they sometimes do.
We accept that minor authorities can articulate the needs of their local communities. A number of noble Lords have said as much in this debate. However, they do not have an exclusive right to do so as many other members of the governing body will also be residing in

845
the local community and articulating the interests of that community. We believe that schools themselves are in the best position to weigh those various factors. Governing bodies should make their own decisions on this issue.
I welcome the fact that the amendments introduced by the Government at Committee stage in this House were regarded as moving half-way towards what our critics wanted. I am grateful to those who recognise that we have tried to be constructive in responding to these concerns. To go further would damage the autonomy of individual governing bodies. We believe in local democracy but we are also actively promoting the greater autonomy of schools. Schools should be left to take a decision on this matter and decide what best serves their interests and those of their communities. We do not believe that such decisions can reasonably be taken by a number of minor authorities.
We are also concerned about the potential size of some governing bodies. These proposals will automatically add two additional governors to every voluntary-aided primary school because of the need to preserve the foundation majority. We should leave it to voluntary-aided schools to decide whether it is right for them to increase the size of their governing bodies in this way. We also believe in equal treatment for all schools, as did the Opposition until they had a change of heart over these amendments and decided to exclude foundation schools. The advantage of our proposals is that they provide all primary schools with the right to choose.
I turn to government Amendment No. 208. This is a technical amendment necessary to ensure that the minor authority definitions moved in Lords Committee and contained in Clause 138 can be brought into force at Royal Assent. The definitions are needed for regulations relating to preparation of instruments of government and reconstitution of governing bodies ready for the appointed day.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the amendment that has been tabled by the Opposition will be withdrawn and that Amendment No. 208 will form part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to respond first to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I do not stand here as a party hack or "over-political" person. I believe that this amendment combines interests that run throughout the House. I do not believe that there is a chamber in the land where we can be apolitical and recognise an issue of importance to the people of this country. I do not stand here simply as a representative of the official Opposition but because I believe this to be an apolitical interest that is widely supported outside this Chamber.
It was the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, who said on a previous occasion that we had had a mean-spirited reply. We have had a meaner-spirited reply today, because we have brought forward amendments which address many of the concerns that the Government expressed at the last stage. I say to my noble friend who
846
raised the issue of Welsh community councils mea culpa on that. I am afraid that I overlooked it. But if the House is mindful to support me today I shall ensure that an amendment is brought forward, or I might rely upon the Government to do my work for me.
The Minister said that schools should be free to choose their governors. Why are we imposing LEA governors on them? Why do they have no choice but to accept LEA governors, but when it comes to a minor authority, which means much more to them in terms of community support, they are left to choose?
I would argue that it should perhaps be the other way around. The minor authority should have the right to be represented, and schools should choose whether or not they would like LEA governors on their governing bodies.
The Minister was breathtakingly dismissive of the number of people who are worried about this issue. I have had letters from hamlets, towns and villages all over the country. If one takes the shire counties and their populations, and the small market towns and their populations, one would find that those represent a large percentage of a population. To dismiss it in the way that the Minister did is unacceptable.
The Minister said also that the Government are going to consult the bodies that represent minor authorities on future proposals as to how this issue is to be addressed. This is our last opportunity in the Bill to address the issue. I am surprised that the Minister, her colleagues and officials did not consult the minor authorities when they removed their right to sit on school governing bodies. That is extraordinary.
This is our legislative opportunity. We are responding in an apolitical way to an apolitical notion. There cannot be a Member of Parliament in this House or another place who has not received a genuine cri de Coeur from the heart of the community asking for a modest but important facility: to be represented on their local primary schools. I commend the amendment to the House.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 93A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 159; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Addington, L.

Beloff, L.

Ailsa, M.

Biffen, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Birdwood, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blatch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Blyth, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Boardman, L.

Annaly, L.

Bowness, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Attlee, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Avebury, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

847

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Moyne, L.

Byford, B.

Munster, E.

Cadman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Calverley, L.

Naseby, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Newby, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Chirk of Kempston, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Norfolk, D.

Courtown, E.

Norrie, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cranborne, V.

Northesk, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Norton, L.

Cross, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Davidson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dearing, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.

Peel, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pender, L.

Downshire, M.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pym, L.

Erroll, E.

Quinton, L.

Falkland, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Feversham, L.

Rawlings, B.

Flather, B.

Reay, L.

Eraser of Carmyllie, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Geddes, L.

Renwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rowallan, L.

Harlech, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harrowby, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Higgins, L.

Stockton, E.

Holderness, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Howe, E.

Swansea, L.

Ilchester, E.

Swinfen, L.

Jopling, L.

Taverne, L.

Kenyon, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Thomas, of Swynnerton, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Liverpool, E.

Tope, L.

Long, V.

Tordoff, L.

Ludford, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Luke, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lytton, E.

Vivian, L.

McConnell, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNair, L.

Warnock, B.

Maddock, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Westbury, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wharton, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Monson, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wise, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Borrie, L.

David, B.

Burlison, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

848

Desai, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Dubs, L.

Monkswell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Orme, L.

Fitt, L.

Paul, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grenfell, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hacking, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardie, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rea, L.

Haskel, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hayman, B.

Richard. L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sewel, L.

Hoyle, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Stallard, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Levy, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Whitty, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Winston, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 94A:
Page 150, line 15, at end insert—
("Minor authority 0 0 1 1 ") governors
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 152, line 44, at end insert—
("Minor authority 0 0 1 1 ") governors
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 97 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 153, line 40, at end insert—
("Minor authority 0 0 1 1 ") governors
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 154, line 4, after ("person") insert ("from whom or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are technical amendments necessary to correct the Bill where current wording does not reflect our intended use or where it does not take into account some specific circumstances which may face schools transferring to the new framework.
Amendments No. 98 and 104 in this group are necessary to correct a form of words in the Bill which, currently, can be read only in the plural, but which we intended to be read in the singular or plural as circumstances demanded. It relates to nominations to be sought for the appointment of additional governors to the governing body.
Amendment No. 99 is needed to allow governing bodies to be reconstituted with minimum disruption. It will enable transitional regulations to allow certain existing governors to remain in post even where they may not strictly meet all the new requirements. Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 provide for specific circumstances where a governing body cannot be fully reconstituted by the appointed day. These amendments are needed to ensure that such schools have a corporate governing body which can continue to function until such time as the governing body can be fully reconstituted under the new framework. The circumstances and the necessary modifications will be set out in the transitional regulations we propose to make under this schedule. We shall of course be consulting on them in the normal way.
Amendment No. 105 is necessary to provide for circumstances in which the LEA which has proposed a variation to the instrument of government can proceed with it. It clarifies the requirement on the LEA to explain why it wishes to proceed and to give an opportunity for agreement to be reached with the governing body. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Incorporation and powers of governing bodies]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 99 to 101:
Page 155, line 24, after ("sub-paragraph") insert ("(3) or").
Page 155, line 41, leave out ("constitution") and insert ("existence").
Page 156, line 31, leave out ("of Part II or III of the Education Act 1996") and insert ("made by or under any of the Education Acts").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36 [Instruments of government]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 32, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 102, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 103 and 106A. They relate to articles and instruments of government. The articles of government define how a school is to be run. They set out the priorities of the school with regard to the curriculum and the particular religious ethos of a Church school.
The Bill proposes that all articles should be abolished, while instruments of government, which define the powers and responsibilities of the governing body of a
850
school, are to be standardised according to a centrally imposed model which is put forward in the schedule. We are worried that these proposals will reduce the particular ethos and individuality of a school. We believe that it is too much standardisation and that there are dangers in it.
Perhaps I may give an example of a school which I should like to remain unnamed. Details are contained in a letter from the department written in 1989 when the instruments and articles of government were reissued. The department stated that Ministers accepted the governors' argument that the school has a large catchment area and a particularly well developed tradition of independence and that that justifies greater flexibility in these documents than in the models that were published earlier on. The letter continued:
"We have therefore removed the references to an Admissions Committee—responsibility for admissions now rests with the governing body as a whole, subject to the general provisions of the Instruments and Articles … We have also recast the procedures for the appointment of the head and other staff".
Your Lordships' will notice that the present Bill lays down detailed conditions as to how head teachers and staff are to be appointed.
The letter further stated:
"In the first case … we have restored responsibility for appointment to the governing body … You will also wish to note that we have made more explicit the governors' responsibilities for the conduct of a … school [of specific religious denomination], and have incorporated more minor drafting points".
The point of that letter, which was written by the same department as is putting forward these proposals, was to state that the particular school needed greater independence and greater flexibility which is now to be denied it.
I have in front of me a letter written to my noble friend by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He says that the purpose of these clauses and schedules is to name the category of the school, the composition of the governing body, the arrangements for foundation governors and, where the school has a religious character, a description of its ethos. He says that there is no intention to add to that list.
Further to that, the noble Lord's honourable friend said in the other place on 2nd February in Standing Committee A:
"I am very conscious of the hard work that many schools have put in to develop their own articles to reflect their priorities and ethos. It would be a mistake"—
in other words, he supports what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said,
"to deny those schools the opportunity to incorporate those provisions in the new arrangements".
He goes on to say:
"The Government took the view that it would be better to remove the requirement to have articles and instead have a common instrument of government, details of which are in schedule 12. That would provide a narrow and focused set of requirements and there will be nothing to stop individual schools adding to them".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 10/2/98; col. 436.]
That is the theory and it is true that the Government have allowed certain committees for governors and a certain degree of delegation of power to the head. But

851
in essence, my noble friends and I find that they restrict the individuality of various schools. I mention in particular the appointment of staff, financial delegation and admissions, with which we shall deal later. The department were saying how desirable it was to give schools those powers.
It is true that Canon Hall, who is the General Secretary of the Board of Education, who I have quoted before, said in his letter to The Times that many of those articles were obsolete and needed revision. He said that it is no attack on a school's distinctiveness. I disagree with that.
One of the reasons why I disagree is that I have been approached by a number of headmasters and those approaches have demonstrated that Canon Hall's views are not shared by everyone. They believe that flexibility is destroyed and the schools are more limited.
The abolition of articles followed by prescriptive schedules limits the freedom of manoeuvre for a school. A particular strength of a school is the power of a head to appoint staff. A head teacher of a maintained school telephoned me yesterday. He said that he opposed the changes which is why he decided to ring me. He said, "The Government constantly exhort us to raise standards". He said that he is told on every occasion that the object is to raise standards. He said that one of the best ways to do that is by giving to heads the independence to appoint staff so that there is as much room to manoeuvre as possible. He went on to say, "We want the sort of independence that independent schools enjoy". He said that in many cases, he was competing with independent schools when he was appointing staff. Whereas the independent schools could do that in a flexible and rapid manner, he would have to go through the elaborate procedures which are defined in this schedule unless my noble friend's later amendments are accepted.
I do not believe that either the assurances of Mr. Byers in another place or those of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in his letter to my noble friend reflect the facts. The abolition of articles and the imposition of standardisation will limit the freedom to manoeuvre and will actually work against the object of the Bill which is to raise standards. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, let us be clear that Amendments Nos. 102 and 106A delete Schedule 12. In effect, that would remove all legislation in this area. I am certainly not persuaded that we should accept such a potentially destructive provision.
The basic premise underpinning these amendments is that the instrument of government should not be subject to legislative provision and that schools and LEAs should be free to have whatever sort of instrument they wish, subject only to guidance. That retains the historic system substantially more than the Bill itself does and devalues the status of the instrument of government which we are intending to enhance.
We are not proposing to legislate on the instrument of government for the sake of it. We need to legislate to make it clear who is responsible for making the important decisions about governing body composition,
852
within the framework of Schedule 9. Otherwise there would inevitably be uncertainty and dispute. Legislation is essential to ensure that governing bodies are well founded and that appropriate interests are represented. Let us also be clear that we are not ridding the system of the hard-fought individual character of schools, as the noble Lord suggests. In many respects the new instrument will be more individual, more specific, and certainly a good deal more meaningful than those that previously existed. For example, schools with a specifically religious character will be required to have an ethos statement embedded in their instrument. Although the noble Lord's comments indicate that there is some dispute among canons on that issue, by and large the Churches have welcomed that approach.
We think it important that the basic legal identity of the governing body is provided for in the instrument of government, and that requires legislation. Perhaps I may clarify my letter and the remarks of my honourable friend Stephen Byers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred. There will be no power to add directly to the specified contents of the instrument of government because this ensures that the instrument will be a simple document made in accordance with a pro forma and that there will be no risk of the instrument conflicting with provisions in primary or secondary legislation. However,—and this is the point made by Stephen Byers—governing bodies will remain able to devise individual procedures and standing orders so far as they are consistent with the main provisions on meetings and proceedings in the school government regulations which will themselves reflect the ethos and traditions of that school.
I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that individuality flourished under the previous system. For example, when the previous government legislated for GM school governance, they did so within a clear legislative framework. The noble Lord would have us believe that those documents were individually tailored to the specific requirements of each governing body. I can assure him that they were not. Indeed from 1994, the instruments of government did not even contain the name of the school. They largely comprised a set of provisions governing the meetings and proceedings of the governing body. Our proposals will ensure that all governing bodies have an individual identity. That identity will be encompassed in the instrument of government which will provide information that is unique to that school and governing body. Common regulations will apply for those things which are already common to governing bodies. We believe that that is a sensible, balanced structure. As I say, it still allows standing orders and other measures within individual bodies to be added to it. As I say, it still allows standing orders and other measures within individual bodies to be added to it.
This is not a straitjacket. We believe that all pupils should have equal access but we do not believe that all schools should be the same. That is very clear from our overall policy. It is very clear also from the way that we have approached the instrument of government changes. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, alleges, that will allow clarity and common provisions

853
but it will not impose uniformity on schools. In any event, the previous system did little to encourage the individuality which the noble Lord now claims for it.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I begin by saying that I am very glad that in my 17 years as a head teacher of a school, I did not have to make the appointments of my staff under the regulations which are proposed in the Bill. If that had been the case, I would not have been standing here and I would have been earning my living in a different way.
I remind the noble Lord again of what his department wrote oh such a short time ago. It accepted the governors' argument that X school with a history and a very large catchment area and a particularly well-developed tradition of independence justifies greater flexibility.
The purpose of my amendment was to give greater flexibility to avoid the straitjacket. Yes, the Minister is right: it would restore the status quo if the schedule were removed from the Bill. I realise that I am speaking to the deaf. The Government have decided that their model should be the French model, as I have said 20 times in this House. Give the Minister the timetable and a clock and she will write the document; the head teachers will do what she says.
Well, robots can be quite effective, but they do not make good head teachers. I can assure the House that not only the head teacher that I quoted but also quite a few more head teachers of Church, Roman Catholic and Anglican, schools do not like what is proposed. They do not like the way that the Government are doing it. Indeed, they sometimes think—dare I say it in the presence of the right reverend Prelate?—that the bishops and the Board of Education do not have a deep understanding of what a head teacher needs to make a successful school.
However, the Government have suffered enough this afternoon. I shall therefore withdraw my amendment. I fear that the wounds are beginning to show. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Schedule 12 [Instruments of government]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 160, line 26, after ("person") insert ("from whom or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 104A:
Page 161, line 1, at end insert—
("( ) Where the school is a foundation, voluntary aided or foundation special school, arrangements pursuant to section 54(2) may be included in the instrument.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 131A, 133A and 134B to 134J. I had intended to table these amendments in Committee. Therefore, in my rather clumsy way, I have been transposing numbers,
854
page numbers and indeed clause numbers in the process of retabling them. In Amendment No. 104A, the reference to "section 54(2)" should read "section 55(2)". That new subsection (2) is contained within Amendment No. 131A.
Just as my noble friend argued a moment ago, I maintain that these amendments go to the heart of a school's ability to be in control of its own affairs and, in particular, the creation of its distinctive ethos and style. Much has been said by Ministers over the past year about the importance of schools being in control of their own affairs and allowing them freedom and flexibility to do this, that and the other. However, this Bill, which contains 142 clauses and 32 schedules, puts a straitjacket on the schools in a way which does not bear out the claimed philosophy of Ministers in the education department.
There is no greater influence on education than the quality of the staff recruited in a school. Schedule 17 represents very much a straitjacket. My preference would be to see the schedule removed from the Bill. I understand that that is not a million miles away from the view also of one or two people within the political sphere of the education department. A number of schools have exercised independence for some years in appointing staff. They have proved very successful. Schedule 17 is so bureaucratic that it will make it more, not less, difficult for schools to recruit good staff. Schools need more, not less, freedom; they need more, not less, flexibility. They need that in order to be able to appoint the very best staff and sometimes, I have to say, speed is of the essence. For example, it is not unknown for a school wishing to recruit a good teacher in a subject where recruitment is normally difficult to acquire a teacher in a matter of hours sometimes, so as to ensure that it makes the right appointment. That is done in order to avoid going through a bureaucratic process whereby the whole thing becomes impossible at the end of the day. If the school has either to re-appoint or go through the whole procedure again, it may, in the process, lose very good staff.
The freedom and flexibility enjoyed by many schools, especially in the grant-maintained sector, has really given independent schools a run for their money. It has meant competition on almost equal terms. As a result, standards in schools have been raised. However, under Schedule 17, schools, especially the good ones which care about such matters, will lose that flexibility and that freedom. Therefore, it cannot be a good thing if standards are to be raised in those schools.
The schools Minister in another place, in a Social Market Foundation lecture only yesterday evening, made a number of comments. But the sound bite which emerged from the department's press release was most interesting:
"Put simply, excellent schools should not be treated in the same way as others … One of our priorities over the next few months is to identify ways in which excellent schools can simply be allowed to get on with what they do well without undue distraction … Why not give them greater freedom to continue to achieve high levels of attainment and active encouragement to share the secrets of their success with other schools".

855
The Government now have the opportunity to put some flesh on the bones of their viewpoints. It is not as though we are talking about an area which needs experimentation. These are practices which have been tried and tested by many of our schools, and, in particular, by our grant-maintained schools. I hope that the Government are sufficiently open minded to accept that Schedule 17 is restrictive; that it will curtail freedom and flexibility; and that it will stand in the way of good schools obtaining good staff, providing good education and continuing to raise standards in our schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in introducing the amendments, the noble Baroness pointed out that she had not moved them at an earlier stage. I must confess that I am perhaps one of several Members of the House who have found it difficult to follow the thread of her argument as regards Schedule 17. Therefore, I should like to express the hope that the noble Baroness will not put her amendments to the vote today. That will give me time to read what the noble Baroness has said and, indeed, to consider the Minister's response.
In general, my impression is that this series of amendments is designed to ensure that foundation schools, voluntary-aided schools and foundation special schools have relaxed conditions as regards the employment of teachers. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether that impinges upon the whole area of conditions of employment, as I believe may be the case. We on these Benches are not generally in favour of having different conditions for those particular schools compared to those which apply to community schools. Therefore, at present, we tend to oppose this group of amendments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baroness just said, these are rather complex amendments. Indeed, her general impression is correct. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, claims that the amendments are about protecting standards and providing flexibility. In fact, they would remove all the procedures and protections for these schools as regards the employment of staff, although they would in one sense, I suppose, provide flexibility.
Amendments Nos. 104A and 131A would delete virtually the whole of the staffing provision set out in Schedule 17 when such a foundation or voluntary-aided school has arrangements for staffing in its instrument of government. There is a separate point here. I am not entirely sure whether the noble Baroness has corrected the situation as regards what she said at the beginning of her remarks. It would appear that Amendment No. 104A relates to schools which have a suspended delegated budget. I believe the noble Baroness has indicated there is a mistake in the amendment in which case it is clearly flawed.
Before I respond to the detail of the other amendments in the group it may be helpful if I reiterate the points stressed in Committee. The majority of the provisions on staffing are familiar to schools of all kinds. The main purpose of the staffing provisions is to carry existing provisions forward into the new
856
framework. Most of these provisions appeared in the 1988 Education Reform Act. Some of them have their origins in the 1944 Act. Most of the staffing provisions in Schedule 17 are currently set out in the articles of government for grant-maintained and voluntary aided schools which will be replaced and rolled forward into the new framework.
The provisions of Schedule 17 are sensible and prudent and put in place the essential elements of the staffing functions that we would expect to be undertaken at foundation and voluntary aided schools. The staff at any school account for the largest single item of expenditure and the public have a right to be satisfied that there are appropriate provisions to ensure that staffing functions are properly and consistently managed. With the provisions of Schedule 17 there are therefore a clear and unquestionable set of arrangements for the essential staffing functions of those schools where the governing body is the employer.
The noble Baroness may not have fully realised the detailed effects of the amendments. By driving a coach and horses through any provision in the schedule for staffing arrangements they remove a number of detailed protections and requirements.
Amendment No. 133A would remove the procedure in Schedule 17 for governing bodies to consider head and deputy head teacher appointments. It is rarely practicable for all members of a governing body to become involved in the detailed consideration of appointments. The usual practice is for a panel of three or more governors to be appointed. The amendment would appear to delete that requirement. Amendment No. 134A would remove the need for a candidate for a deputy head teacher post, for example, to meet any staff qualification requirements. This would potentially allow foundation and voluntary aided schools to appoint teachers, or anyone else for that matter, currently barred by the Secretary of State on misconduct or medical grounds. In short, that opens up a danger to children. The amendment would also remove the provision for the governing body to make an appointment or engagement for such a post when the incumbent is absent.
Amendments Nos. 134B and 134C deal with temporary appointments. They would increase from four months to one year the reference period for the appointment of a temporary teacher and disapply the detailed procedure that is required for a substantive teacher appointment. We believe that teaching is so important that substantive posts should be properly advertised. We do not consider that the four month limit for temporary teaching posts should be extended.
Amendment No. 134D deletes the requirement to inform the LEA of a teacher vacancy. It is not entirely clear what the effects of that would be but it appears to be yet another attempt to remove proper quality control on appointment procedures. Amendment No. 134E deletes the provisions for the LEA to nominate a candidate for a vacant teaching post and includes a provision for the governing body to advertise a teaching post vacancy unless it decides to fill it by other means. This is no real change in one sense. It is not compulsory

857
to appoint someone who replies to an advertisement but it is clearly desirable to do so in most cases. The schedule reflects that.
Amendment No. 134F deletes the provisions to advertise a vacant teaching post and includes a requirement for teachers to be employed under a written contract of employment. This would in certain circumstances reduce flexibility because it would prevent schools engaging supply teachers from employment agencies. Amendment No. 134G deletes the current provisions for interviewing and deciding on teacher candidates where the governing body advertises a vacant post. It is not entirely clear what the intention of that deletion is as the procedures already set out in the Bill are flexible.
It seems to me that the detailed effects of the amendments are either obscure or are intended to remove quality controls. The clear strategy behind the proposals is to remove any legislative control on appointments to these categories of schools. That is not the Government's approach, not because we oppose flexibility and innovation in appointments but because the public have the right to require school governing bodies in this sector to make appointments in such a way that the quality of the teachers who are appointed can largely be guaranteed. We do not think the strategy behind the amendments is a sensible one. We believe that such requirements which have featured in most education Acts for many decades should also feature in the future.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if ever there was a response designed to strengthen rather than weaken the case for my amendments it is the one we have just heard. Is the noble Lord really saying that the quality of staff recruited by the Oratory school in London or the George Spencer school in Nottingham is poor because they have had the flexibility to operate without Schedule 17? When the noble Lord says that I seek to remove the requirement to inform the LEA, that does not make for appointing a better teacher. It is an administrative procedure which sometimes can cause a delay and stand in the way of appointing a good teacher. The very idea that we are fighting for flexibility in order to appoint unsuitable teachers is breathtaking in the misunderstanding it reveals. I ask the noble Lord to talk to head teachers who have enjoyed this flexibility and who have recruited first class staff, sometimes at short notice because they have not had to go through this restrictive straitjacket of bureaucratic procedures. There is a serious misunderstanding of what the schedule is about.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I shall not put the measure to the vote. I apologise for the mistake I made. I was referring to Clause 55 and not Clause 54 which was originally in the amendment on the Marshalled List. All the amendments in this group are designed to introduce flexibility. One of the reasons it has been so difficult grouping these amendments is that I would have preferred to take Schedule 17 out of the Bill. However, the apoplexy on the part of noble
858
Lords opposite at the thought of losing Schedule 17 altogether would be a serious matter. However, I have attempted to include a provision in Schedule 17 to enable schools to be more flexible and to exercise some independence.
The other point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, made has great force. I have absolutely no philosophical or practical objection to extending this kind of flexibility and freedom for appointing staff to all schools. I thought it was preferable to take a step-by-step approach and in the first instance extend that flexibility to those schools which have already proven their worth.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Baroness while she is in full flow. However, I should make clear that my purpose in making the comments to which she referred was not to suggest that these relaxations should also be applied to other schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I would have no objection to the provision being extended to other schools. If the noble Baroness is arguing that it should not be extended to any schools, we shall simply have to agree to differ. The noble Baroness said that she did not want any different treatment as between schools. We had no hang-ups about this matter whatever. We realised that certain schools were distinctive and operated within different frameworks. The Government in their wisdom have chosen to create foundation schools rather than all schools becoming community schools. The Government did that either because those schools were distinctive within the system or they were not. If they are distinctive, there has to be some distinction made between how those schools operate and how other schools operate. The distinction has already been made by the Bill. As I said, it is flexibility and independence that I seek. Under my step-by-step approach I seek to apply my amendments at present only to foundation schools and voluntary aided schools.
Mr. Byers made an interesting speech last night for which a number of my colleagues were present. I know that they and a number of others found his remarks interesting. They experienced what we have experienced all along—the yawning gap between rhetoric and practice. This schools Bill is the first legislative opportunity that Mr. Byers has had to put some of his words into action. It is a God given opportunity. Arguing for more freedom and flexibility is one thing; however, by supporting these amendments he could put those ideas into practice. Instead, the schools Minister who talks about standards supports the straitjacket which, from time to time, will stand in the way of good schools appointing quality staff.
I shall not press these amendments because they are flawed I wanted to give people an opportunity to understand what I was trying to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 163, line 10, leave out ("proposed variation") and insert ("governing body's proposed variation or why they wish to proceed with their own proposed variation (as the case may be)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 163, line 47, at end insert ("or (4A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 106A not moved.]
Clause 38 [Additional functions of governing body]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 33, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) The governing body of a maintained school shall have a duty to facilitate and give reasonable assistance to parents who wish to establish an organisation within the school to represent parents.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the aim of this amendment is to make it clear that parents can set up an organisation to represent them in a school and be able to look to the governing body, which is the policy-making body of a school, for reasonable assistance. When I moved this amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he would reflect upon it. I have since heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that she does not now like the amendment.
However, the Campaign for State Education (CASE) felt so strongly about the matter that I must put the amendment forward yet again, and hope perhaps to make the noble Baroness change her mind.
CASE stated:
"It is clear from our contact with parents … that despite all the rhetoric many parents feel that they have great difficulty finding a voice in schools. Parent governors are sometimes told by heads or chairs of governors that they are not there to 'speak for parents'. They should have a means of speaking to parents and parents should have a means of speaking to them if they want it. CASE hears from parents in other schools where these arrangements work well—because the head and governing body support the idea. Guidance will not bring this about in every school.
"[The Minister said] What is facilitating and giving reasonable assistance can be defined in guidance. [But] Guidance cannot give parents legal rights which are not in the law. For example guidance could make clear that when parents want to set up an organisation they should be able to expect that the governing body will allow them a room to meet and to use pupil post to invite parents. They should have some secretarial support and photocopying. The governing body would not be expected to initiate an organisation but if the parent governors wanted to set one up or a … number of parents then it would be clear they could expect this support from the governing body as part of the duties of the governing body".
The Advisory Centre for Education is equally keen on this amendment. The Alliance of Parents & Schools stated in a letter to me:
"It seems ironic that the Government states it welcomes more parental involvement yet seems unwilling to give parents support through legislation.
"Many Headteachers and Governing Bodies still do not permit parent groups within schools. Many may allow groups with the proviso that its function is purely fund-raising and discussion on educational topics strictly forbidden. There is still a big divide between parents and schools where this attitude prevails".
Those groups feel very strongly about this matter. I hope that the Minister may perhaps think again. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving us an opportunity to revisit her amendment seeking to establish an organisation within schools to represent parents. While I do not totally agree with the noble Baroness as to the need for yet another body, I recognise the thrust of her argument. She recognises the important role played in those links by PTAs and other bodies attached to a school.
I had in mind a different approach, one in which the governing body of a maintained school should have a duty to construct a mechanism for consulting all parents from time to time. That could well cover the setting up of pupil post/mail and a system of registering replies. It could consider issues such as changes to the school day; school uniform; school transport; parking problems; plans to open or close sixth forms, and many other issues on which the governing body or the head wishes to consult parents. I think we all agree that if parents are consulted they feel that they have a real say in what is going on within a school. Hence my hesitation to support fully the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David; however. I acknowledge the thrust of her argument.
In responding to that argument in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, acknowledged that existing arrangements at school level are not always satisfactory. He also confirmed that annual parents meetings will be retained. However, as we know, parents meetings are not always well attended. Many of the matters to which I have referred are not encompassed in that way. I hope, on reflection, the noble Lord will be able to give a more positive response to the amendment.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Tope has added his name to this amendment. I wish to support the noble Baroness, Lady David. I ought to declare an interest. I have been a member of the Campaign for State Education. I must admit to being not quite sure whether or not I am a paid-up member at present. I have a feeling that my membership form is lying in a file somewhere among other matters that I need to deal with.
This matter is important. Those of us who are parents or have been governors of schools have sometimes observed the difficulty in particular schools of parents having their voice heard. At the end of the day, if a head teacher does not want you to be heard, he can make sure that you are not. The amendment seeks to ensure that that right is enshrined in legislation. That is the main difference between ourselves and the Government. Many of the Minister's remarks have indicated that the Government have understood, and that they want to involve parents. The difference lies in enshrining that right in law.
I know that some members of CASE feel that the Government are not quite clear as to how they see the role of parents. Sometimes they want them to be heavily involved and sometimes they do not. They are asking for parents to be involved in home-school agreements

861
and so on; yet when it comes to the crunch will they be able to do other things properly in a school? It is important that parents who are trying to consult with other parents have a right to use facilities within a school. If you are a parent trying to communicate with other parents, one of the hardest things is not having access within a school to post or photocopying facilities. That makes such communication very difficult.
If the Government are serious about involving parents in raising standards in schools, this is one way in which they can give recognition to that and enshrine in law the right of parents to have access to a school, and to the teachers and head teacher.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I wonder whether I might encourage my noble friend the Minister to be somewhat sympathetic to the stance on this amendment. We all know the value of parents' associations—particularly in fund-raising and encouraging parental activity in school life. The most important role of many parents' associations is acting as a voice for parents' concerns about aspects of running a school. We should not under-estimate the inhibition felt by many parents about one-to-one meetings with a head teacher on matters of concern. Parents' associations allow such issues to be raised in a far more receptive atmosphere. Those concerns can then be passed on by the parents' association. Most heads and most school governing bodies recognise the value and role of parents' associations, encourage them and take part in their activities. But there are instances where heads do not encourage parents to come to the school and take part in school activities and where parents' associations are often seen in the same light, particularly if previously such a parents' association has criticised the actions of a head teacher.
If the governing body is also weak in such a situation, the head then has free rein to take that kind of attitude and there is very little that individual parents can do about it. Of course, it is those schools where parents are inhibited in raising their concerns where we need the most effective parents' association. But those are the schools where it is often most difficult to set up a parents' association or, if there is one, to get the kind of support it needs from the school.
It seems to me reasonable that the governing body ought to be given some responsibility for ensuring that there is an effective parents' association. If I were developing performance indicators to judge the performance of a school governing body, I would say, "Do you have an effective parents' association?" I hope that there will be some sympathy for the terms of the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I also wish to give my support to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and her amendment. She is simply asking that where parents in a school wish to establish a parents' association, the governing body should have a duty to help them. That seems to me to be a wholly reasonable request. I still carry the scars from over 20 years ago
862
when, with other parents in my children's primary school, I tried to set up a parents' association against the wishes of the head. He was quite adamant that he did not want any interference at all from parents. When we finally appealed to the local authority, they cunningly, as they thought, suggested to the head that he might ask parents to help raise money. He did so and we worked our socks off to raise a large sum of money for the school, thinking that now at last we had our foot in the door. When we presented him with the cheque for the money we had raised from our efforts at school fairs and teas and all the rest of it, he said: "Thank you very much. I'll now take the money away and discuss with my staff how the money is to be spent". We said: "Can't we have a say in it?" "Good heavens, no", he said, "It is a matter for me and my staff".
The memory of that experience makes me feel doubly supportive of the noble Baroness's amendment. I hope that the Minister will think again about the issue.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy for the amendment but I wonder whether the wording is quite right. How many parents are required to form an organisation? As I read it, "parents" in the plural can mean two. I think you would need more than that number. What would be the position if there were two schools of thought among the parents in the school with two different objectives? Would the governing body be required to set up two rival organisations? I do not think that is what the noble Baroness has in mind. But it is something that needs to be borne in mind. After all, this will be an expense on the school and the school does not want to pay for a war on its own premises.
Lord Tope: My Lords, before the Minister speaks perhaps I may come in at the conclusion, as my name is down to the amendment, with that of the noble Baroness, Lady David. My noble friend Lady Maddock was, of course, speaking for me on the amendment.
I have listened to this brief debate. I suspect the Minister is about to say that she has much sympathy with the intention of the amendment but—and then we will hear the "buts". It seems to me that to deal with the matter through guidance and the dissemination of good practice is all very desirable. It is particularly useful in schools where they are at least amenable and, we hope, encouraging of the establishment of parents' organisations. They will take notice of the guidance and it will be useful to them.
What we are trying to achieve concerns the, I hope, small minority of schools that do not want such organisations and will take no notice of non-statutory guidance. It is not a matter which I should have thought was central to the Government's policy on the Bill. I should have thought it was a relatively small but important issue on which a listening government could give way. We have had two supportive speeches from the Government's Benches, indeed the amendment was moved from there, with support generally from around the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, it may well be that more detailed thought needs to be given to the provisions. So be it, that is in the Government's hands.

863
But if we are doing anything in this House, spending so many hours considering the Bill, even in my wildest moments I do not expect to change the central tenets of government policy—hard though I try sometimes. But on minor issues like this which are of importance to many people a listening government could demonstrate that they are listening. They could offer us a little more than sympathy and understanding and commit themselves, if not to agreeing to the amendment, at least to taking on board what it means. Then they could come back with something which the parliamentary draftsmen say is more appropriate. I hope that we are about to hear that from the Minister.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady David for much of what she said. As she mentioned, I am conscious that when my noble friend Lord Whitty responded to the amendment at Committee, he offered to reflect further on the issues raised. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that we are listening and have reflected on them. The amendment raises important issues and we wanted to consider them and look at all the implications. The amendment was tabled at quite a late stage. It has been inspired by CASE proposals for parent councils, as my noble friend Lady David said. Under the CASE model, the parents of pupils in every class would elect a class representative who would then serve on a school parent council. Each school parent council would be represented on a national body for parents. I believe that that is the thinking underlying the amendment and the way CASE would like to see it implemented.
We greatly admire the work of CASE and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, when she is being pursued for her subscription, will pay it immediately. But we do not believe that this approach is the best. As a model, the tiered structure is rather bureaucratic. We are also concerned about the potential additional burden on head teachers and schools whose staff would inevitably need to be involved in working with parents' associations through providing "reasonable assistance".
More importantly, we are not convinced that the majority of parents would wish to be organised in this way. The way would be open for such an organisation to be controlled by just a few individuals—that is perhaps what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, had in mind—rather than one that could be said to meet the needs of all parents. Most parents want to develop closer relations with school staff and want mechanisms for ensuring that any concerns they may have about their own children are properly considered. The Government have sought to address that concern. That is why Clause 38 of the Bill places a statutory requirement on school governing bodies to establish procedures for dealing with complaints. I hope that all those Members of your Lordships' House who have contributed to the debate will accept that that is an important development.
The Government are committed to working with parents and to improving parental participation in their children's schooling. We are increasing that participation in a number of ways: for example, by encouraging parents to become more involved in what is happening in the classroom, as in our literacy strategy.
864
That will have a direct impact on standards. We are improving parental involvement by increasing the number of parents on governing bodies, by providing parent representatives on education committees and through our important proposals for home-school agreements. All those changes implement commitments we made in our manifesto and will considerably strengthen the influence of parents.
We need to guard against overloading parents, however, as well as governing bodies. The changes I have already mentioned will mean that schools and governing bodies will need to develop new ways of working with parents. The more changes we introduce simultaneously, the less effective they will be. Governing bodies need to work in partnership with parents. By increasing the number of parent governors, we hope to ensure that parents' views are firmly reflected within the governing body. On that basis, we see no need to formalise the school-parent relationship through legislation in this further way. That is the difference between the Government and those who support the amendment.
Legislation is not the best way to deal with that kind of relationship. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, was perhaps referring to her experience of 20 years ago when she said that in the past head teachers and governing bodies are sometimes resistant to parents taking a bigger part in the operation of the schools attended by their children. I too have had similar experiences. Perhaps we are all becoming a little old—I speak for myself in saying that. That was true 20 years ago, but there have been a lot of improvements in the way in which schools react to parents. Today we would not face the same resistance to which the noble Baroness referred and which I experienced, at least not to anything like the same degree. We believe that the best course is for individual schools and parents to sort out the most appropriate ways of cementing the important relationship between parents and teachers rather than imposing a statutory requirement on all schools. Parental involvement is a precious investment that all schools should be making, and that is a message that the Government are promoting in many different ways.
We are sympathetic to the intentions of the amendment but do not believe that this is the appropriate time to place this additional statutory requirement on school governing bodies. I hope therefore that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in her response she indicated that we were all speaking on behalf of CASE. I want to make it absolutely clear that I certainly was not.
The suggestions that I made were practical ones expressed by parents in school who were saying that they would like a closer link. That is why in some ways I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, in wanting to establish another body. I was trying to encourage the Government, if they are not prepared to accept Amendment No. 107, to think about putting in place a system to encourage greater exchange within the

865
schools for parents and governors. At the end of the day the governors run the school, whether or not it is through a set organisation.
I want to make clear that I was not speaking on behalf of CASE. I apologise if I misunderstood the Minister, but I felt she inferred that because CASE had been in contact with us we were all speaking on its behalf. That is not true in my case. However, I am aware that schools desire to have a closer working relationship with parents, and we must do whatever we can within the new structure to enhance that. The amendment was one way of highlighting the situation.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I in no way meant to imply—I am sorry if it appeared that I did—that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was speaking on behalf of CASE. On the contrary, she said that she did not agree with the amendment. As she was not putting forward an amendment of her own, I did not see the need to pick up on what the noble Baroness was saying. I tried to say what the Government believe to be the right approach and to explain the system that we would like to see installed. I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.
Baroness David: My Lords, I confess that I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. I received a great deal of support from all around the House and thought we might influence her. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, did not exactly support my amendment, but she was at least sympathetic to the idea.
The amendment asks for facilitation. It does not say that this organisation "must" be set up; the amendment merely wants to make that possible. The Minister made a great thing about appointing people to the governing body and the education committee. But that would not change anything if those elected had no way of consulting the people they are meant to be representing. That is what the amendment was seeking to do.
I do not see that the amendment will create a lot more bureaucracy, as the Minister said. She said also that there has been an improvement in the way parents are led into schools. However, as has been said, some schools still do not encourage that. I shall not press the amendment today. I shall read carefully what my noble friend said and may come back to this at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe moved Amendments Nos. 108 to 114:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
("Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body
GROUPING OF COMMUNITY, VOLUNTARY AIDED, VOLUNTARY CONTROLLED AND COMMUNITY SPECIAL SCHOOLS UNDER A SINGLE GOVERNING BODY
.—(1) A local education authority may resolve that any two or more community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools maintained by them shall be grouped for the purposes of this Chapter.
(2) Where any schools are grouped under this section, they shall—

(a) be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as a single school; and

(b) have a single governing body constituted under a single instrument of government.

(3) A group shall be treated for the purposes of this Chapter—

(a) as a voluntary aided school, if it contains at least one voluntary aided school;

(b) as a voluntary controlled school, if it contains at least one voluntary controlled school and paragraph (a) does not apply;

(c) as a community special school, if it consists only of community special schools; and

(d) as a community school, if none of paragraphs (a) to (c) applies.

(4) In this Chapter—
"group" means two or more schools grouped under this section; and
"grouped school" means a school which forms a part of a group.
(5) Any reference in any enactment to the governing body or governors of a school shall be construed, in relation to any grouped school, as a reference to the governing body or governors of the group.").
Insert the following new clause—
CONSENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE AS TO GROUPING
(".—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a local education authority shall, before resolving to group any schools under section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body), obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to the proposed grouping.
(2) The Secretary of State's consent is not required if—

(a) the group will consist only of two primary schools;

(b) both of the schools serve substantially the same area;

(c) neither of the schools is a special school (as defined in section 337 of the Education Act 1996); and

(d) where they are in Wales, there is no significant difference between them in their use of the Welsh language.

(3) Where—

(a) two primary schools have been grouped in circumstances in which, by virtue of subsection (2), the Secretary of State's consent to the grouping was not required, and

(b) a change of circumstances occurs such that a proposal to group those schools made after that change would require his consent.

the local education authority shall obtain his consent to their continuing to be grouped.
(4) The Secretary of State may give his consent to any grouping (or continued grouping) of schools subject to such conditions as to the duration of the grouping as he sees fit to impose.
(5) Any dispute as to whether, for the purposes of this section—

(a) two primary schools are to be regarded as serving substantially the same area, or

(b) there is any significant difference between two primary schools in their use of the Welsh language,

shall be determined by the Secretary of State.").
Insert the following new clause—
CONSENT OF, OR CONSULTATION WITH, GOVERNING BODY AS TO GROUPING
(".—(1) A local education authority shall not pass a resolution under section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools wider a single governing body) applying to a voluntary school without first obtaining the consent of the school's governing body.
(2) A local education authority shall not pass a resolution under section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body) applying to a community or community special school without first consulting the school's governing body.").
Insert the following new clause—
PROCEDURE. FOR MAKING OR ALTERING THE INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT FOR A GROUP
(". Schedule 12 shall apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations, for the purposes of making or altering the instrument of government of a group.").
Insert the following new clause—
ELECTION OF PARENT AND TEACHER GOVERNORS FOR A GROUP
(". The instrument of government for a group—
(a) may provide for the local education authority to have power to determine, in relation to every election of parent or teacher governors, the school or schools within the group—

(i) the parents of registered pupils at which are entitled to stand and vote at the election, or

(ii) the teachers at which are entitled to stand and vote at the election,

as the case may be; and
(b) where it so provides, shall require the authority to ensure that the position after any such election will be that there is no school within the group which will not have had an opportunity to participate in accordance with paragraph (a) in the election of at least one of the parent or (as the case may be) teacher governors of the group.").
Insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF GROUPING
(" .—(1) Where subsection (2) applies in relation to a school which is grouped with one or more other schools under section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body), the local education authority shall review the grouping of those schools and consider whether or not it should be brought to an end.
(2) This subsection applies in relation to a school if proposals relating to it are made under any provision of Chapter II.
(3) Where on a review under this section a local education authority consider that any grouping of schools should be continued, and the Secretary of State's consent to the grouping, or to the continued grouping, of the schools was at any time required by section (Consent of Secretary of State as to grouping), the authority shall

(a) report to the Secretary of State on the results of their review; and

(b) provide him with such information as he may reasonably require with a view to enabling him to consider whether or not the grouping should be brought to an end.").

Insert the following new clause—
TERMINATION OF GROUPING
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order bring to an end any grouping under section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body) in respect of which his consent was at any time required by section (Consent of Secretary of State as to grouping).
(2) Any grouping under section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body) may, if the group does not contain a voluntary school, be brought to an end by resolution of the local education authority.
(3) Any such grouping may, if the group contains a voluntary school, be brought to an end—

(a) by resolution of the local education authority made with the agreement of the governing body, or

868

(b) by one year's notice given either by the authority to the governing body or by the governing body to the authority.

(4) Any instrument of government for two or more schools which are grouped under section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body) shall be taken to have been revoked—

(a) in the case of a group which was established for a specified period, at the end of that period, or

(b) at the time when the grouping is brought to an end in accordance with subsection (1), (2) or (3).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos. 108 to 114 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Maintained schools to have budget shares]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 115A:
Page 37, line 21, at end insert—
("(1A) The authority, in allocating the budget share for maintained schools under subsection (1), shall retain for its own strategic management expenditure no more than a prescribed amount per pupil.
(1B) The amount prescribed under subsection (1A) shall not be increased by more than is required to maintain the value of that amount in real terms.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 115A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 118A and 120A. My first amendment addresses the issue of restricting an LEA's ability to hold back money for strategic management. The hold-back must be prescribed and increased only in line with inflation. That is entirely in line with what has been said by the schools Minister in another place. Amendment No. 118A asks that,
"Regulations…shall provide that the individual schools budget shall be not less than 95 per cent. of the local schools budget".
Amendment No. 120A gives all maintained schools the right to have control over their full share of the individual school's budget.
Some disquieting events are taking place. The growth in the number of staff at the Department for Education and Employment is alarming and it will only be a matter of time before we ask for the details. If every pound that comes from the Treasury for education is top sliced at the education department, that means less money will go to local education authorities. Every reason the local education authority is given to keep the money at that level means less money for schools.
A chain reaction takes place. All the tough talking of schools Ministers to LEAs in relation to holding money back unnecessarily comes a little thinly from a department that is now growing at an alarming rate. In fact, the politicos in the department are enjoying the luxury of considerable support.
The Grant-Maintained Schools Advisory Committee—the three bodies which have come together—which represents all the grant-maintained schools responded to the fair funding report. It expressed support for some aspects of it, as we all do—greater transparency and more simplicity. Nevertheless, there are a large number of areas where it is still

869
concerned. It believes that the department is sending mixed messages—which is correct—as to whether foundation and voluntary schools will receive additional funding in recognition of their additional responsibilities. It is interesting to read paragraphs 14 and 77 of the report to try to understand what that means. Does the department recognise that those schools have additional responsibilities?
Although the committee goes on to say that,
"Although there is a firm commitment to exercise tight control on LEA funding for its strategic management function, the Government has rejected capping their expenditure"—
again, another mixed message—
"at least, for the first year of operation".
The grant maintained schools find that very disappointing. They know that it gives scope for creative accounting by local education authorities. One has only to read the early clauses in the Bill to know that there are legitimate reasons for holding back money under the heading of school improvement. There is no commitment to fund local education authorities' new responsibilities with additional cash. If they do not get the money to cover those administrative duties and their new policy area functions, where will the money come from? It can only come from the money that would normally go to schools.
The local education authorities are to be responsible for strategic capital work, building work and large equipment purchases over a given and unspecified threshold. That will be unpalatable to the grant-maintained schools.
The concept of significant majority voting is a real cause for concern. A threshold of 80 per cent. is suggested. Where a significant majority of schools vote to allow the LEA to top-slice funding—for example, for library services—the dissenting schools will be compelled to suffer the top-slice. Again, the grant-maintained schools say that that is unacceptable.
If the economically viable number of schools needs to be whatever per cent. in order to provide a service, why should other schools that do not wish that service to be provided have to be part of that body? Why not accept the economically viable number of schools which have voted quite positively for the LEA to provide the service, and allow the other 20 per cent. of schools to do their own thing? That is not allowed for in the consultative paper. I hope that that will be addressed in the definitive paper.
The local education authority music services are to be a special case for top-slicing to protect service provision. It is difficult to believe that Whitehall knows better than the local education authorities or the schools themselves. The administrative burden that will be placed on the department to cope with the provision on a school-by-school basis is a very tall order—unless there are more armies of people doing the work. The GMSAC will argue against this arrangement and any extension—for example, to outdoor education centres. The argument for top-slicing conflicts with the acceptance that if a service is not financially viable it should disappear.
Grant-maintained schools are also concerned about the national insurance scheme. When I first referred to this in a previous debate, I thought it was right that the Government should point up the issue of insurance because it has been a vexed issue. My understanding now is that, as it has developed, the grant-maintained schools sector has found very economical deals for insurance. That flexibility should be allowed to continue.
Local education authorities will be empowered to vet foundation and aided schools' maintenance of buildings and grounds. That will not be acceptable to grant-maintained schools, which have not been subject to regular inspection by the funding agency for schools, other than through the Hunter condition survey which was a one-off fact-finding exercise, and a very important one. The grant-maintained schools will vigorously oppose this. It provides scope yet again for LEAs to be heavy handed.
Financial monitoring by local authorities could be monthly. It would be helpful to know whether the Government intend to outlaw that. They should press for simple quarterly returns; certainly no more frequently than that.
The LEA internal audit will apply to all schools. The grant-maintained schools will maintain their line that external audit has been an instrument in helping schools achieve good value for money. This responsibility provides scope for local authorities to recruit additional staff and to interfere in schools' financial affairs on a regular basis. I hope that the Government will take on board that point.
If local education authorities are found guilty of excessive retention of funds for school improvements, that could lead to a refusal by the Secretary of State to approve the educational development plan. However, there is no definition of "excessive". It is a subjective judgment, but it would be helpful to know what the Government believe to be excessive.
There is a worrying reference in paragraph 75 to the possible introduction of FEFC-type funding for post-16 education. If that is to be a policy move, it will mean considerable loss of moneys to schools. What justification is there for that policy? If the policy is implemented, what will be the transitional arrangements for schools which have robust and high numbers in their sixth forms?
It is suggested in paragraph 82 of the fair funding paper that different arrangements will apply in different categories of schools for local authorities to charge against the schools' budget share. The grant-maintained schools will resist any charging by local education authorities. Although there is a commitment to allow schools to maintain their own bank accounts, the document gives no guarantee that the schools will be able to receive the interest without penalty from the local education authority. There are considerable concerns about this aspect, which is absolutely crucial to schools.
We debated in a previous amendment the importance of high quality teaching staff and non-teaching staff. They cannot be secured without resources. These

871
amendments go to the absolute heart of the schools' concern about whether in future they can sustain and, where possible, improve standards of education at school level. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, grouped with the three amendments that my noble friend has moved and spoken to is my Amendment No. 121, the purpose of which is to ensure that local education authorities can build into their schemes for delegation the requirement that schools provide them with information on particular aspects of their expenditure. As the House will realise, I am particularly interested in expenditure on special educational needs.
The consultation paper, Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools, outlines the Government's proposals for the future framework of delegation. The proposals in the paper will lead to much greater clarity about what is to be delegated to schools and what is to be retained by local education authorities. The new arrangements will allow LEAs to provide key special educational needs support services from the centrally-held budget. There will be greater clarity for schools about the notional amount attributable to SEN in that delegated budget.
However, there is nothing in the paper to ensure the accountability of schools to the local education authority for the delegated SEN funding. There is nothing in the requirements that will enable local education authorities to require schools to give them an account of their special educational needs expenditure.
There is, however, a requirement on governing bodies to set out in their SEN policy how they allocate resources to pupils with SEN and to report annually to parents on the way in which the resources are used—to parents, not to the local education authority. It is perhaps this requirement to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was referring when he replied to me at Committee stage.
However, Ofsted, in its reports on the implementation of the code of practice, clearly identifies this element of schools' SEN policies as a weakness. In its first report on the implementation of the code of practice in 1996, it pointed out that the governors rarely knew how much was in their budget for special educational needs or how it was allocated. In its later report, two years on, that continued to be a weakness. That was 1998, and it would appear that there is still a weakness today. The requirements of schools' SEN policies say nothing about what schools should say as regards their allocation of resources. I am concerned that LEAs should be able to hold schools to account for the way in which they use their delegated SEN funds.
In replying to this concern in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
"I believe that that point also is covered by the Government's approach. There are already requirements on schools to do that".—[Official Report, 4/6/98; col. 524.]
Can the noble Baroness clarify what "requirements" were being referred to? If this is the schools' SEN policies requirements, is it open to the LEA to specify to schools how they should present the information on the allocation of resources in their policy and in the
872
annual report of governors to parents? If it is not open to the LEA to do this, what information can the LEA require from schools about their use of delegated funds?
It is particularly important to be clear about what the LEA can ask for from schools in the light of the more hands off relationship between LEAs and schools that is envisaged in the consultation draft of the code of practice on LEA/schools relationships.
In the normal rules of procedure of the House I shall be unable to respond at the end. So I have taken this opportunity to let the noble Baroness know that, if I am not happy with her response, I shall refer to this matter again at Third Reading.
6 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like briefly to comment on the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. This is one of the most sensible ideas to have been put forward in dealing with SEN. In all budgets, money tends to be swallowed up. With SEN, extra funding can be put into the system for specific tasks but may then be swallowed up. For instance, I have heard accounts of a child with a statement who was given sufficient support for three hours extra specialist tuition. The school came back to him and said, "Why don't you have 15 hours of basic support from a helper in the classroom?". The school had the helper in the classroom as part of the school staff and so it was more convenient for the school. Unless that helper is properly trained—the child was dyslexic—the school will not be able to give the appropriate help. Unless greater transparency is involved in this area you cannot make sure that you are getting the correct help and not merely paying for more effective tea and sympathy. In this area we have to have the direct approach and the appropriate type of help and not merely provide someone's extra time. As this is so important, I suggest that either this amendment or something very like it should be added to the Bill. That will help us to show exactly what we are trying to achieve.
Lord Rix: My Lords, one of the first things you learn if you ever perform in charity shows is that you have to stand at the side of the stage and listen to the performers go through the entire performance so that when it comes to your turn you do not tell exactly the same stories as they have already told. I suffered that many years ago, until three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning. Everything that I would wish to say about Amendment No. 121 has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington. I would just put the question once more. How clear will schools have to be to the LEAs about how they have used their delegated budgets?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it may be helpful if I take these amendments in turn. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has sought in Amendment No. 115A to take forward the debate that we had in Committee on a similar amendment which she tabled at that stage.

873
We do take seriously the need to contain LEAs' strategic management costs. Our Fair Funding consultation paper suggests a three-pronged approach: setting the tightest possible working definition of strategic management; the possibility of setting quantitative limits on it in future years; and, in the meantime, where it appears that an LEA is diverting excessive resources away from schools to strategic management, the possibility of directing an inspection of the LEA by either Ofsted or the Audit Commission.
While we share the broad intention behind the amendment, there are nevertheless problems with its practical application. First, there is a difficulty in setting the amount required by the amendment at the time we would need to make the regulations. The reasons for this is that the current LEA budget and out-turn data in relation to management and administration is not categorised in a way which enables us to estimate accurately what LEAs are spending on "strategic management" as described in Fair Funding. Secondly, we are not convinced that setting a single limit applicable to all LEAs might necessarily be appropriate. To set a uniform financial cap might tackle inefficient LEAs, but it could penalise authorities—for example, very small LEAs—with a genuine need to spend larger than average amounts on these functions. We want to consider this on its merits once we know what LEAs are spending on the new definition. However, we are serious about constraints here.
As I think the noble Baroness recognises, the Bill already contains provisions—in Clause 46(3)(b)(i)— which would allow the Secretary of State to impose the kind of limit which she has in mind. We shall not hesitate to use this if need be. However, for the reasons I have indicated already, it would be premature and arbitrary to do so in the first year of operation of the new system.
Amendment No. 118A is, of course, identical to one which the noble Baroness tabled at Committee stage, and it may be as well to expand on the brief remarks which my noble friend made then. There are three main reasons why we think it would be wrong to go down the road marked out in Amendment No. 118A and impose an overall limit on LEA's centrally-retained expenditure.
First, the effect of such a limit is to put, for example, special educational needs in the same envelope as management and administration. I am sure that many noble Lords, including those who have spoken to a different amendment in this group, would be concerned at the possible implications. It is true that central support for pupils with statements falls within the present potential schools budget and is subject to the kind of overall ceiling which this amendment envisages. But the previous government's 1996 White Paper proposed to take that expenditure out of this category. I am a little confused because the noble Baroness seems to be going back on her own Government's proposals as well as opposing ours. For our part we remain convinced that quantitative limits should be targeted, and not indiscriminate.
874
Secondly, there is a sense in which the amendment puts the cart before the horse. It would require LEAs to delegate 95 per cent. of the local schools' budget. But Clause 46 leaves the exact scope of the local schools' budget to be defined in secondary legislation. Our thoughts on this are set out in Fair Funding. We think the local schools' budget should include some items which fall outside the present general schools' budget. These include some expenditure on behaviour support and corporate administration. On the other hand, we are inclined to exclude some capital financing and premature retirement costs which at present fall within the general schools' budget. However, we wish to consider the responses to the consultation before deciding where exactly to draw the line. I think that is right and sensible. If the scope of both A and B are matters for secondary legislation, it is odd for the primary legislation to stipulate that A must not be less than a stated percentage of B.
Lastly, there is the question of whether the 95 per cent. requirement is realistic. Clearly, the effect of the figure will depend on the exact definition of the local schools' budget. Nevertheless, it is fair to note that central expenditure on special educational needs currently accounts for about 3 per cent. of the general schools' budget nationally, while a further 3 per cent. or so is attributable to expenditure supported by specific grants, which is ring-fenced and cannot readily be included in schools' delegated budgets for that reason. That takes us to over 5 per cent. already.
I think it is fair to conclude that the proposed 95 per cent. requirement is a little unrealistic unless the local schools' budget turns out to be very different in size and shape from what we currently envisage. To contain central expenditure within the 5 per cent. limit that the amendment proposes within the current plans for the local schools' budget could place a great deal of pressure on essential central budgets, including that for special educational needs. I am sure the House would not want to do that.
Having said that, we could apply this kind of overall constraint through the powers under Clause 46(3)(b). But for the reasons I have given already, we do not consider it appropriate that the Government should be bound by the primary legislation to do so, and even less appropriate that the primary legislation should specify an actual figure.
Amendment No. 120A is a virtual re-run of one tabled at Committee stage by the noble Baroness. It was an amendment which caused us some confusion at the time because we assumed it was about the accountability of schools to LEAs for the stewardship of their delegated budgets. That is a misunderstanding which the revised wording clearly seeks to dispel.
As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to give any individual school the right to opt to receive an amount of money from the LEA as part of its delegated budget in lieu of any service which the LEA has chosen to fund centrally for the generality of its schools, in accordance with the regulations to be made under Clause 46. I am a little unclear about the intended scope of the amendment. The noble Baroness,

875
Lady Blatch, appears to be particularly concerned with services which might be subject to the majority voting procedure suggested in Fair Funding, but the amendment does not appear to draw any distinction between one centrally-funded service and another.
On the broad interpretation, every school would have the right to receive something akin to the present central annual maintenance grant in respect of any central service or combination of central services, possibly including services for which GM schools have not been funded up to now.
I doubt whether the terms of the amendment would actually achieve that. It looks rather circular: it refers to a school's full share of the individual schools budget, but the individual school budget itself represents what is left after the deduction of funding for central services. However, we would still see a fundamental objection, even if the drafting worked. Our aim is to maximise the freedom of choice and manoeuvre available to individual schools, so far as this is compatible with the legitimate interests—not the selfish interests—of other schools and with the need for LEAs to be able to carry out their carefully defined role. I cannot stress this enough.
However, it is quite another matter to suggest that individual schools should be able to opt out of central service provision at will. If that is really what the amendment is after, I do not think it unfair to describe it as an attempt to preserve grant-maintained status by other means. On that basis, Amendment No. 120A seems to me to come very close to being a wrecking amendment and I am not sure that there is more to be said than that. If I have got this wrong and the amendment is supposed to relate only to services affected by the majority voting procedure, I apologise, but it is not altogether clear.
Nevertheless, the Government must still oppose the amendment. As I think my noble friend Lord Whitty was at pains to emphasise in Committee, no decisions have been taken about the range of services to which this procedure might apply at the end of the day. Nevertheless, the purpose of the procedure is to protect valuable services which might be excessively vulnerable if only a small proportion of schools chose not to subscribe to them. The Library Service is perhaps a good example. That objective plainly cannot be achieved if a small minority is free to go its own way anyway. As I have said, no decisions have been taken. We want to consider the issues on their merits in the light of all the responses we receive.
The Government's position can be summarised briefly. We want to maximise delegation. Our detailed proposals for this will be set out in regulations which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny involving the affirmative resolution procedure in the case of the first regulations to be made under Clauses 46, 47 and 48(1). It is important that the proposals embodied in those regulations are carefully thought out in the light of the consultations which we have set in hand. In the Government's view it would be wrong to pre-empt these decisions through primary legislation, even if we were
876
more enamoured of these specific amendments than we are. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will withdraw them.
I turn now to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which is exactly the same as the one he tabled at Committee stage. The purpose of the regulations to be made under Clause 48 is to enable the Secretary of State to specify the content of schemes which will govern the financial relationship between local authorities and the schools which they will maintain. The content of the regulations will be subject to consultation in due course, and indeed debate in this House. But their basic coverage is set out in the non-exhaustive list in Clause 48(2). The purpose of that list is to make it clear that the regulations may address these matters.
The amendment would add a specific provision that the regulations could require schemes to specify information to be provided to the LEA about the use of a school's budget share. Already included in the list are conditions relating to the management of delegated budgets. We expect that this will be used to require schools to submit overall budgetary and expenditure plans to their LEA, which they will be drawing up in a new funding framework which, as explained in Committee, offers schools and LEAs a clearer view of their respective responsibilities.
As he explained, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, wants greater transparency over the reporting of expenditure on special educational needs. It was pointed out in Committee that requirements on schools to do this are already in place. I hope that I can reassure him on that. These are in the Education (Special Educational Needs) (Information) Regulations 1994, which require schools' governing bodies to publish information about special educational needs, including resource allocation, and to send a copy to the LEA.
Moreover, the SEN Green Paper proposes a greater monitoring role for LEAs to help schools improve the quality of their provision for special educational needs. The consultation document Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools explicitly envisages that LEAs would be able to retain central funds to fulfil this monitoring role.
So a provision for schools to report on SEN is already in place, and, while we have not yet decided our priority action in relation to SEN, we shall be considering, in the context of that plan, whether and how to strengthen LEAs' ability to monitor schools' provision for special educational needs. This general financial provision would, however, be an unsuitable context for what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. I hope I have reassured him and that he will seek to withdraw the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the fullness of the Minister's reply. I have taken in much of what she said. But I do not believe that the DfEE will ever be in a position to make a judgment as to what should be held back by LEAs. All the arguments that the noble Baroness gave relating to this year will relate to any year. The needs of LEAs change and different

877
LEAs have different needs. They fluctuate from year to year and from term to term. The words in the Fair Funding document about going down that road being prescriptive and using powers against LEAs if they are profligate in the way in which they hold back expenditure seem to be a forlorn hope that there ever will be a way to do that in a manner which is going to make sense to schools.
The noble Baroness misunderstood my amendment. I did not follow the argument about it being a wrecking amendment. That was not meant in any way whatsoever. My understanding is that once local authorities have subtracted from the local schools' budget the strategic management funding, funding for access, funding for LEA support in schools, improvement and funding for special educational expenditure, what is left from that goes to schools. That would include moneys for central services. The schools then make a decision as to whether or not they wish the services to be provided by the local authority.
Part of the thrust of my amendment is to give schools control over the money. It is an argument put strongly in the paper. If an insufficient number of schools vote to have central services provided, the services fall away and the schools are left to fund the services. However, if a requisite number of schools vote to have a specific service provided by the local education authority, those schools which do not vote for that should be left free to provide the service in their own way. If I have not secured that thrust to my amendment in its wording, I shall do some more homework between now and the next stage of the Bill.
There is no argument. If the Government believe in looking for ways to give schools more flexibility and freedom—I refer back to the speech by Mr. Byers last night—this is one way of doing so. Where an economic number has been reached for purchasing services from LEAs, let us leave the other schools to exercise their discretion as to whether they wish to opt in with the 80 per cent. or so, or prefer to find their own way to provide services.
The Minister has yet again proved that through the great flurry of presentational trappings around this 100 per cent. delegation to schools, the figure is almost impossible to work out. It is only 100 per cent. of what is left when the DfEE has had its cut and the LEAs have had their cut. Even under the present system, whatever is left goes to the LEAs, so one could call that sum 100 per cent. Grant-maintained schools are still asking what the 100 per cent. relates to. It is difficult to find out. I have had a written response from the Minister but it makes the position no clearer.
There remains one serious concern. I had hoped that some light might be thrown on it in the response. I refer to the degree of financial autonomy enjoyed by grant-maintained schools today. When those schools become foundation schools, will the degree of autonomy remain at that level? As the new system is phased in, will all other schools come up to at least the level of autonomy that GM schools enjoy, and perhaps even surpass it? That issue will be important to the grant-maintained schools. They wish to know in what
878
way financial autonomy will change when they move from being grant maintained to foundation schools. The Minister has failed to answer that point. With the leave of the House, I wonder whether I may have a response to that question.
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Swinfen in that by concentrating on my amendment I did not refer to his amendment. I support it. I shall not do so at length. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, brought out the point that it increases transparency so that we all know what is being spent, how it is being spent, and to what effect. That would be helpful. My noble friend has my support on that point.
I shall not press my amendment, but, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may have an answer to my question about the financial autonomy of grant maintained-schools as they transfer to foundation school status.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that question goes much wider than the amendment. Normally at Report stage a question should be closely directed to the amendment. However, I can say this to the noble Baroness. In putting together a consultation paper on fair funding, we set out a range of proposals on which we wished to consult and on which, until now, we have had a great deal of support from grant-maintained schools. They have accepted that we do not wish to constrain their financial autonomy. We wish to create a system in which all schools, not just grant-maintained schools, will have a higher degree of financial autonomy than in the past.
To respond to the noble Baroness's point, yes, we wish the position of other schools to be the same as that of grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for that. My question was whether the schools will sustain the present level as they transfer to foundation school status. I shall read what the noble Baroness said. It will be important to schools.
I remind the noble Baroness that I put on record on behalf of grant-maintained schools a large number of concerns on funding which arise from the Fair Funding paper. Those came from the very people who said that they supported some of the Government's proposals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Determination of LEA's general schools budget and aggregated schools budget]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 38, line 2, leave out (""general") and insert (""local").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 203, 205 and 209. All but the last of those amendments discharge our undertaking in Committee to bring forward amendments to align the nomenclature used in the Bill with the nomenclature used in the consultation paper, Fair Funding, which was issued on 29th May. The first few were tabled by the

879
noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am grateful to her for anticipating our purpose in this respect. I hope that it means that she will agree with them all. The wording in Fair Funding is clearer than the wording in the Bill as originally drafted.
The amendment to Clause 142, Amendment No. 209, is essentially technical. Subsection (5) seeks to bring some of the school funding provisions of the Bill into force on Royal Assent because we thought that that timing was necessary. However, it does not achieve that very satisfactorily as it stands. It brings the provisions into force only for the purposes of determining schools' funding for the financial year 1999–2000: so for 2000–2001 and beyond we would have to bring the provisions into force again by order. The simplest solution is to delete subsection (5) and bring all the school funding provisions into force by commencement order. We still intend that schools should receive their recurrent funding under the new arrangements with effect from April 1999. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, for those of us who over the years have grown used to GSBs and ASBs, and have spent much time learning what they meant, the change of nomenclature will be a struggle. However, I am puzzled by the change of the aggregated schools' budget to an individual school's budget. It is not an individual school's budget but the total of the school's budget. Why it is now called an individual budget rather than an aggregated budget I do not know or understand. If I have got it wrong, the Minister will tell me. It is not the main point that I wish to raise.
I wish to express concern about the consultation period allowed. The Government allowed only two months' consultation on what is a significant proposal in their Fair Funding paper. Some weeks of that will be in the school holidays. I understand that schools were sent copies of the consultation document only when the Government came under pressure several weeks into the consultation period, therefore squeezing that period even more. Because of that, the local government association education committee agreed unanimously—it was agreed between all political parties and the independent group—on 17th June to ask the Secretary of State, first, that the closure of the consultation period be put back to 30th September this year to deal with the problem of limited time for schools; and, secondly, that devolved funding should commence in April 2000 unless a decision is made to change the funding year to match the academic year. In that case, it could commence in September 1999. I understood the Minister to say a moment ago that it was still intended that it should start in April of each year. The LGA asks that it should be April 2000.
The chair of the LGA wrote to the Secretary of State with both requests. I understand that only today at lunchtime the Minister, Mr. Stephen Byers, replied no to both requests. I do not know whether the Minister is able to confirm that that is the Government's final decision on the unanimous request of the Education Committee of the LGA. If my information is correct, as I believe it to be, once again we have a government
880
who say they are listening but are not hearing. That is regrettable and will not be well received in the local government world in all parties and in no parties.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I deal first with the question of nomenclature. I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope. What we now call the individual schools budget is the budget to be distributed to individual schools. I believe that that is entirely clear. Certainly, "aggregated" for the same purpose was not clear. A local schools budget is the schools budget of the local education authority. I fail to see the difficulty that the noble Lord has described. I hope that he will not object to these amendments.
I do not know whether the noble Lord has spoken on behalf of the Education Committee of the LGA but he certainly represents its views. I am grateful to him for that. He complains about the short time available for consultation. It is not as if the formal consultation period was the first that the education community knew about the proposals. The higher delegation proposals had been on the agenda for a very long time. Having said that, the noble Lord is correct that Stephen Byers has responded to the Local Government Association in the terms that he has reported.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116A:
Page 38, line 4, at end insert ("(which may include expenditure incurred otherwise than in respect of schools)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 116A. This amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 119A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Perhaps I may deal with the two together. Amendment No. 116A is a technical amendment which—since we have been referring to the Local Government Association—has arisen in consultation between the LGA and the department. In the view of the Government, it does not alter the effect of subsection (1) in any way but merely makes explicit what we believe to be implicit in the terms of the subsection. But it seems to be worth doing it to preclude misunderstanding.
It may be asked why we should wish to be in a position to define the local schools budget in terms which range beyond "expenditure in respect of schools". I say at once that it is certainly not our intention to prescribe everything including the kitchen sink. Paragraph 17 of Fair Funding indicates a number of areas of expenditure such as adult education or the Youth Service, which we do not envisage including in the local schools budget. However, we want more flexibility in these matters than the present law allows us. Under current legislation, the general schools budget, which the LSB supersedes—we have a mutual understanding—is defined in terms of the LEA's expenditure in respect of schools covered by its Local Management of Schools scheme. This excludes a fair amount of pertinent expenditure. For example, it excludes pupil referral units and education provided

881
otherwise than at school: home education. These forms of provision make a significant contribution to LEAs' efforts in the areas of behaviour support and SEN, and it is odd to split them off from the totality of the LEA's expenditure on primary and secondary education.
More seriously, there is a substantial tranche of corporate administrative expenditure known in current jargon as service strategy and regulation—I do not attempt to defend these words—which has been held to fall outside the general schools budget. We aim to bring all or most of this into the LSB under the head of strategic management so as to be able to ensure, as paragraph 20 of Fair Funding puts it, that it does not consume resources which would be better used at school level.
Against this background I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I point out to the noble Lord that we are at Report Stage.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the Minister provides the answer before I have spoken to the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord prefers, I shall not say anything further until he has spoken. I shall respond to his amendment, as he can respond to mine.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect that what I say will not make a great deal of difference to what he says. However, I believe that I should at least speak to my amendment before the noble Lord tells me why he is not prepared to accept it; otherwise, we will be a little out of order in these matters.
I rise to speak to Amendment No. 119A in my name. In answer to a previous comment by the Minister, I do not speak on behalf of the Education Committee of the LGA. I am not a member of it and I doubt whether it would choose me to speak on its behalf—at least the majority probably would not. These days, who knows? The consultation document on the local management of schools, Fair Funding, allows for the possibility of the capping provisions in Clause 46 being applied to the strategic management costs of non-school education activities. My amendment would prevent that from happening. The Fair Funding consultation document is a welcome move to bridge the gap left by the previous administration's attempt to create two separate school funding systems, one being more generous than the other. The Government have confirmed that there is no body of research evidence to indicate that by putting more funds at the disposal of one school system better results are obtained.
We are now to have fair funding for all schools which will achieve the Government's manifesto commitment to ensure that,
"the system of funding will not discriminate unfairly either between schools or between pupils and make the local authority responsible for funding all schools".
However, there are problems with the proposals in the Bill and the consultation document. Those of us in local government know only too well the iniquities of the
882
capping regime and the problems that it introduces. Some look forward to the forthcoming local government White Paper. They will look with interest to see whether it proposes the abolition of capping. Others who are a little more realistic fear that perhaps that commitment will weaken still further. The paper Fair Funding explains in paragraph 69 the possible use of the wide capping provisions in Clause 45(3)(b) of the Bill. The Secretary of State may use reserve powers to cap expenditure on strategic management and access funds but only after information is available on the new pattern of expenditure. The strategic management function is defined in Fair Funding to include the strategic management of all education functions, not just those relating to schools; that is, lifelong learning and the Youth Service.
Clearly, the Government have a fear, which is perhaps irrational, that local authorities have an interest only in paying lots of money to officers who carry out strategic management functions across the whole range of education functions. If that is the case, it is nonsense. The desire of local authorities to keep down these costs is at least as great as that of central government. But the introduction of crude capping will not help. I recognise that the Government are committed to another capping regime, which I regret, at least in terms of putting the powers into law. This amendment will restrict those capping powers to schools and will prevent their extension into other local authority functions.
When the Minister replies—his brief may tell him this—will he tell us why the Government feel that those powers are needed? Will he say how the Bill can be used to cap non-school functions, given that the Bill's Long Title restricts its scope to making:
"new provision with respect to school education …. and for connected purposes".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the important point in the noble Lord's last remark is, "connected purposes". We are advised that "connected purposes" includes the provisions which we have in Amendment No. 116A, although I must confess that there was a time, before today, when it was thought that there might have to be an amendment to the Long Title. So his point is not entirely unperceptive.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. I fear that his amendment has a rather different effect from what he intends. It is concerned with the Secretary of State's power under subsection (3) to set limits to items of centrally retained expenditure. I acknowledge straight away that that is entirely consistent with government Amendment No. 116A. Indeed, the noble Lord's amendment to subsection (3) presupposes our own interpretation of subsection (1). So perhaps we are together to that extent.
While I understand why the noble Lord has seen fit to table the amendment, the Government feel unable to accept it for reasons which I hope will be evident from my previous remarks. If the amendment were to be made, it is likely that a significant amount of corporate administrative expenditure would have to be regarded as falling outside the scope of subsection (3)—that part of

883
subsection (3) which provides for the prescription of a class of expenditure for which limits may be specified—in other words, as he rightly says, capping.
To take that expenditure, which is not directly on schools, outside the capping procedure would be contrary to our aim of moving resources out of town halls and into classrooms. I hope that the noble Lord tabled his amendment, not because he appreciated that, but because he did not appreciate that. On reflection, I hope that he will feel able not to move it in due course.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 117 and 118:
Page 38, line 5, leave out (""aggregated") and insert (""individual").
Page 38, line 7, leave out ("general") and insert ("local").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 118A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 38, line 12, leave out ("general") and insert ("local").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119A not moved.]
Clause 47 [Determination of school's budget share]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 38, line 24, leave out ("aggregated") and insert ("individual").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 120A not moved.]
Clause 48 [LEAs' financial schemes]:
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Schedule 14 [Local education authority schemes: approval, imposition and revision]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 169, line 30, after ("guidance") insert ("subject to sub-paragraph (2A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 refer again to the issue of guidance, which I introduced at rather greater length the day before yesterday. In doing so, I promised that I would not repeat the whole thing all over again each time we came to these amendments. The amendment is concerned principally with the issue of guidance. On this occasion, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that my response will be the same as it was last time. I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment with such celerity. I will see whether I can cut down the arguments, although they are the same.
884
This amendment would require a draft of the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State in connection with schemes made under Clause 48, to be put before Parliament for approval prior to its coming into force and then, if approved, brought into force by order.
The noble Lord's Amendment No. 149 tackles the same point. Perhaps we can deal with that when we come to it even more quickly, because I think that we can deal with the point here.
Codes of practice are at a higher level than guidance. A code of practice, like the Highway Code, will generally set out a desired pattern of behaviour. It is therefore appropriate that when the Bill refers to codes of practice in Clauses 84 and 125 the preparation of those codes should be subject to a specific parliamentary procedure.
Guidance is at a lower level. It always has been. It is less prescriptive and may not cover such a wide area. It is intended to assist LEAs in carrying out their statutory functions. It is not appropriate that its preparation should be subject to a statutory procedure.
In the case of the guidance to be published in relation to plans for reducing infant class sizes, LMS schemes, education development plans and proposals for the establishment, alteration or discontinuance of schools, the main control is not the guidance but the need to secure the approval of the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the school organisation committee. Approval can be withheld if the plan, scheme or proposal is not satisfactory. If an LEA has regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State then that will make it easier for approval to be obtained without delay. Guidance will also help to ensure a consistency of approach among LEAs and schools in areas such as home-school agreements and exclusions. I should not have cited home-school agreements, over which we are in disagreement.
The Secretary of State will, of course, always consult interested parties before publishing guidance as he is required to do by virtue of general principles of administrative law. The Government therefore consider that such a requirement is, quite simply, unnecessary. I remind the House that the first regulations which are to set out the main requirements as to what may be in those schemes will be subject to affirmative resolution. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am a little disappointed. I had hoped that two good nights' sleep might have encouraged him to move a little more in our direction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Maintained schools to have delegated budgets]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 40, line 27, leave out ("general") and insert ("local").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Suspension of financial delegation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 171, line 10, leave out ("proposed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 171, line 22, leave out ("given under sub-paragraph (2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Staffing of community, voluntary controlled and community special schools]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 173, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) registration,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 128 and 131 to 136, 138 and 139. This is a bit of a mixed bag of amendments, although I believe that there is enough in common for us to save time by dealing with them together.
Amendments Nos. 127, 128, 131 to 133 and 139 ensure that the provisions governing the appointment and dismissal of teachers in Schedules 16 and 17 are consistent with existing legislation and with the Teaching and Higher Education Bill.
Amendment No. 127 in Schedule 16 and Amendment No. 132 in Schedule 17 ensure that employers will be obliged to take account of any requirement for a teacher to be registered with the general teaching council. The Government intend to introduce such a requirement for teachers at maintained schools under Clause 11 of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill.
Amendments Nos. 128 and 133 are technical amendments simply to improve the drafting. In case there is any suspicion, they have been proposed by parliamentary counsel without policy instruction from the department.
Amendments Nos. 131 and 139 ensure that a teacher can be dismissed swiftly and with minimum bureaucracy where his or her continued employment is no longer consistent with statute or regulations. They cover cases where a person has been barred for misconduct by the Secretary of State, made subject to a disciplinary order by the GTC or failed the induction year.
Amendment No. 134 is a drafting point. It ensures that consistent use is made of the word "approve" in the paragraph providing for the appointment of a head or deputy head teacher.
Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 ensure that, whenever a member of staff is suspended by either the governing body or the head teacher at a foundation or aided school, the governing body or the head teacher inform each other, and that on ending a suspension the governing body—only the governing body can end a suspension—inform the head teacher. This mirrors a similar arrangement for the governing body and head teacher of
886
a community or voluntary controlled school keeping each other informed of any decisions they make On staff suspension.
With regard to Amendment No. 138, the Bill provides for the procedure to be followed before the governing body makes a decision that a person employed to work at a school should have his contract of employment terminated or, under certain circumstances, should not have the contract renewed. The Bill also provides that the governing body shall give effect to its decision by giving the person notice to terminate his contract or by terminating the contract without notice. This subparagraph is not apt where a fixed-term contract comes to an end and so the effect of Amendment No. 138 is to limit this subparagraph to cases where the decision is that a contract of employment should be terminated rather than a fixed-term contract coming to an end.
These government amendments will ensure that appropriate consistency is maintained in the staffing provisions for foundation and aided schools, and I therefore commend them to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 173, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 173, line 46, after ("(5)") insert ("for a period of more than four months").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 129 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 130 and 137. Perhaps I may first refer to another part of the Bill. Schedule 16, paragraph 4(5), introduces a new provision which enables the governing body to engage a person supplied by an agency as acting head. The amendment seeks to place a limit of four months for the duration of such an engagement.
Supply teachers have been a feature of our education system for some time, but the concept of supply head teachers is new. Acting heads appointed under the schedule would be self-employed under contract to an agency and the contractual duties of head teachers under the pay and conditions document would not necessarily apply to them. Therefore, it is unclear whether the many statutory duties of head teachers would be applicable or enforceable.
Some head teachers are concerned that the new provision is a knee-jerk reaction to the current head teacher recruitment crisis and is a little short-sighted. We would all agree that an acting head must be seen only as a temporary solution.
Paragraph 10(1)(a) of Schedule 16 limits the appointment of an agency supply teacher to a period of not more than four months. This amendment merely places the same limit on the appointment of a supply head teacher. I suggest that the issue is important. I realise that it may take longer to appoint a head

887
teacher, and I do not underestimate that, but head teachers are rightly concerned that there should be a similar limitation.
Amendments Nos. 130 and 137 are concerned with the dismissal of head teachers. The amendments are the same, but apply to different schedules. They would ensure that where a governing body determines that it wishes to dismiss a head teacher, that head teacher has the right to have an independent member who has voting rights appointed to any committee that is established to hear the appeal against the governing body's decision.
I suggest that the amendments are fair. The matter was discussed at the conference of the National Association of Head Teachers by the Minister for School Standards, Stephen Byers. He was sympathetic to having an independent member on the appeals panel. He expressed the view that it might be a little too late and that perhaps something should have been done a little earlier. It will be interesting to hear the Government's current thinking. The amendments are self-explanatory and I shall hold the House up no longer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness's zeal for battle was undermined by her noble friend Lord Tope, but I accept that it was not totally undermined. It is perfectly proper that we should respond. I am fascinated by her explanation of the amendment. We made some assumptions about the intention of Amendment No. 129 which we thought were different from its effect. If I speak to both the effect and the intention, perhaps one or other will prove to be apposite.
Amendment No. 129 would have the effect of allowing the governing body of a community or voluntary controlled school to engage for up to four months an unqualified person as acting head teacher or acting deputy head teacher while it was considering a substantive appointment to such a post. This would also have the effect of allowing such schools to engage teachers who have been barred by the Secretary of State on misconduct or medical grounds.
That is what the amendment provides, but I do not think that is intended. It would not be acceptable. Any person engaged as an acting head or deputy head teacher should meet all the staff qualification requirements applicable to the post, regardless of the length of time he or she is engaged in such a capacity. I need hardly add that it is unacceptable to allow people in schools who have been barred.
It seems, however, that the intention of the amendment may not be to disapply the qualification requirements for a period of four months but to restrict engagements for persons to provide their services as acting heads or deputy heads to a period of four months, an engagement in this context being to provide services otherwise than under a contract of employment with the local education authority.
If this is the intention of the amendment—from what the noble Baroness said, I believe that it is—then it is also unacceptable. It would place an additional administrative burden on the governors by making them reconsider acting heads or deputies if they are not able
888
to conclude their consideration of the substantive appointment within four months. This could lead to the undesirable outcome of a school going through a number of acting heads or deputies before a substantive appointment is made. This would be unnecessarily burdensome for the governors and disruptive to the school.
The important point is to ensure that the governing body is able to acquire the best available acting head or deputy head while it is considering the substantive appointment. But this is a temporary arrangement and will last only for as long as is necessary for the substantive appointment to be made. In addition we would expect the governing body to pursue its duty to appoint a substantive head or deputy as soon as possible. I am sure that were we not at the Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, would agree that such a restriction on a governing body would not be very desirable.
The teacher employment market has changed in recent years, as we have been reminded forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. There are now a number of ways to meet short notice staffing needs beyond that provided by the LEAs. Schools need to be able to get the best available local support and I appreciate the noble Baroness's reservation about using teacher supply agencies. Very often it is possible to cover short absences or gaps by using, for example, recently retired staff, and there are many good retired teachers who are able to help schools in this way, including retired heads and deputies.
If the intention of the noble Baroness is to restrict engagements of acting heads and deputies to four months in the same way as this time restriction applies to engagements of classroom teachers, then I should point out that the circumstances of acting heads and deputies are not comparable to those of classroom teachers. Decisions are made on an acting head or deputy where the governing body is unable to make a substantive appointment before the date when the post falls vacant, and such an acting post is temporary until such time as the substantive decision is put into effect. This will be extended in the Bill to cover absences of heads and deputies, but the main purpose is to make provision for acting appointments to cover vacant senior posts while substantive replacements are being considered.
Amendments Nos. 130 and 137 are not a matter for inclusion in this part of the Bill. It is a matter for the school government regulations which will be made under Schedule 11. I see no need to include such amendments on the face of the Bill.
The Government have said in another place that they are willing to give more thought to the matter of an independent member on appeal panels for head teacher dismissals, and that we have the option of including something on this in the regulations made under Schedule 11.
The noble Baroness is quite right. Stephen Byers said in his speech at the recent annual conference of the National Association of Head Teachers, that he is open to the idea of having some form of independent element

889
in the head teacher dismissal process for schools in the new framework, although not at the expense of our commitment to speedy but fair dismissals. He also pointed out that an independent element might be more appropriate at the staff committee hearing which decides whether to dismiss, rather than the appeal stage. By the time of the appeal the relationship between the head and governors has probably broken down anyway to such an extent that it cannot be repaired. But all of this is a matter for the school government regulations on which we will be consulting in due course. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it would not be appropriate to provide for those on the face of the Bill before consultation on the regulations. I ask the noble Baroness not to press these amendments.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him to cast his mind back to my amendments to Schedule 17. Paragraph 7(5) of my Amendment No. 133A states:
"Where a vacancy in the post of deputy head teacher has not been filled, or it appears to the governing body that the post will not be filled by appointment made in accordance with the preceding provisions of this Schedule before the date it falls vacant, the governing body may, pending the appointment of a deputy head teacher, appoint a person as acting deputy head teacher".
Earlier the noble Lord or the noble Baroness argued against my amendments and yet somehow the noble Lord appeared to imply that that flexibility exists. That is not the case under Schedule 17. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain how what he has just said fits with Schedule 17.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two kinds of amendment in this group of amendments. The second one deals with an independent person at the appeal and I assume that the noble Baroness is not talking about that.
Amendment No. 129 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, deals with the length of time that an unqualified person may serve as an acting head teacher or acting deputy head teacher. I do not see any conflict between that and what I have just said.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It has been quite helpful for us to find out precisely how the Government view the role of acting head teachers. The Minister used the phrase "for as long as is necessary". The concerns that I have raised in relation to this amendment are concerns of head teachers. It may have been rather more helpful if the Minister had indicated what he thought was necessary and what was over-the-top, as it were, in terms of having an appointment that was not permanent. I am aware, as other noble Lords will be, that in some areas of the country where it is difficult to recruit head teachers, there may be a situation in which there is an acting head teacher for a long time. I suggest that that is not good for the school and it is certainly not good for the head teacher because an acting head teacher who is left to be an acting head teacher for a long time does not have the
890
same commitment to the job as a permanent holder of the post. Therefore, I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not indicate what was acceptable but instead used the phrase "for as long as is necessary".
As regards the other two amendments, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying how the Government wish to introduce into the regulations, or elsewhere in the Bill, when there is a dismissal, the concept that there can be independent support for whoever is being dismissed. It is interesting because the Minister and I obviously have the same briefing note, word for word. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 180, line 14, at end insert (", or
(b) the person in question is a teacher who is subject to a conditional registration, suspension or prohibition order made under Schedule 2 to the 1998 Act (disciplinary powers of General Teaching Council).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 127. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but he spoke extremely rapidly when dealing with that group of amendments and I wish to raise a question on this amendment which deals with the dismissal of teachers. If I understood him correctly, he spoke about three reasons for dismissal which are those usually accepted: misconduct, failure in the probationary year and another one which I did not quite catch. I believe that it was a failure to carry out the appropriate work of the school, or words to that effect.
We all accept and understand that dismissal of teachers is a very serious matter and, when it occurs, it is obviously a very important matter. From reading Schedule 16, it seems to me that that carries out the normal procedure for dismissing teachers for the normal reasons. But a year ago we heard a great deal about a fast-track procedure for incompetent teachers, which is rather to difficult to define. I wondered whether I had missed something and whether or not that issue is covered in the schedule of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness has spoken on Amendment No. 131 which is concerned with,
"conditional registration, suspension or prohibition order made under Schedule 2 to the 1998 Act (disciplinary powers of General Teaching Council)".
That relates to the Teaching and Higher Education Act. It may help the noble Baroness if I spell out in more detail what that provides because that may address the question she raises about what kind of offences would be appropriate. I will approach it from the other end and deal with what kind of action the General Teaching Council may take.

891
There are four kinds of disciplinary order of increasing gravity which the General Teaching Council will be able to make: a reprimand, a conditional order—which is what the amendments are concerned with—a suspension order and a prohibition order. Both suspension and prohibition will mean that a teacher will be taken off the register and will not be eligible to teach in a maintained school. That will lead to the dismissal of a serving teacher unless the employer is able to provide alternative non-teaching work. That is really the answer to the noble Baroness's question about the fast-track procedure. If it is the two most serious sorts of disciplinary order made by the General Teaching Council, that is where the fast-track procedure comes into effect.
A conditional order will not mean that a teacher is taken off the register, but certain conditions will be applied to his or her practice as a teacher. Some conditional orders may require the teacher's dismissal;' for example, the GTC might stipulate the condition that a person could not teach pupils of certain ages or teach specified subjects.
The amendments that we have been discussing are not about the fast-track procedures as such; they are the local school procedures for considering incompetence. What we are doing by way of these amendments is to incorporate the provisions from the Teaching and Higher Education Bill on the establishment of the GTC.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools]:
[Amendment No. 131A not moved.]
Schedule 17 [Staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 132 and 133:
Page 181, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) registration,").
Page 181, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 133A I should inform the House that if this amendment be agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 134.
[Amendment No. 133A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 183, line 2, leave out ("accept") and insert ("approve").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 134A to 134J not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments No. 135 and 136:
Page 187, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) The governing body or head teacher shall, when exercising that power, immediately inform the head teacher or (as the case may be) governing body.").
892
Page 187, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) The governing body shall, on ending such a suspension, immediately inform the head teacher.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 138 and 139:
Page 187, line 21, at beginning insert ("Where their decision is that a person should have his contract of employment terminated, then,").
Page 187, line 40, at end insert—
("25A. The governing body are not required to comply with paragraph 24 in relation to the making of such a decision as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph in a case where—

(a) the termination or non-renewal of the contract of employment of the person in question is required by virtue of regulations under section 218 of the Education Reform Act 1988 or section 19 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, or

(b) the person in question is a teacher who is subject to a conditional registration, suspension or prohibition order made under Schedule 2 to the 1998 Act (disciplinary powers of General Teaching Council).").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 61 [Responsibility of governing body and head teacher for discipline]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 48, line 21, at end insert—
("(c) registered pupils at the school, and
(d) teaching and non-teaching staff at the school.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 142A. In addition, Amendment No. 141 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and Amendments Nos. 143, 144 and 145 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Blackstone have also been included in this grouping.
The purpose of the two amendments in my name is to ensure that staff and pupils are consulted about the principles and details of disciplinary measures. When rejecting these amendments in Committee, my noble friend Lord Whitty said:
"I agree that it is important to involve pupils and staff when drawing up the school's discipline policy. It is not our intention to exclude teachers from that area. It is our aim to ensure that teaching staff in particular should make a contribution to drawing up a school's discipline policy.
However, the question is where, how and when that input takes place for both pupils and staff. Our approach is that that should be a matter for individual schools in the light of their particular circumstances. In some cases that may be before the governing body makes its statement of general principles; in others, head teachers may decide that it is best to consult pupils and staff when determining the detailed rules and codes of conduct. Therefore, for reasons of flexibility we are not convinced that it is necessary to include a specific requirement on the face of the Bill for widespread consultation either by the governing body or the head teacher. Schools require flexibility, and that is best left to guidance rather than wording on the face of the Bill".—[Official Report, 8/6/98: cols. 705 and 706.]
There are a number of responses to my noble friend's statement. He said that it is important to involve pupils and staff in the drawing up of a school's discipline policy, but there is no provision on the face of the Bill to do so. As the discussion in Committee made clear, putting something into guidance does not make it a requirement on schools—who can and do disregard guidance. Only legislation has any effect on practice. I believe that, unless the Bill itself is amended, a great many schools will definitely not involve staff or pupils in the process.
My noble friend objected to pupils and teachers either being involved when the general principles are set by the governors or when the detail about rules, sanctions and so forth is determined by the head teacher. It is obviously important that they should be involved at both stages. Governors have to consult parents about the general principles. This was agreed by the Conservative Government in 1997, when the Labour Front Bench attempted to ensure that parents, teachers and pupils were involved. Now is the opportunity to ensure that the whole school is engaged in the exercise—how could this not be a healthy and constructive procedure? As regards the head teacher's determination of the rules and regulations, it is equally important that the whole school community is consulted, so that they, to use current jargon, have "ownership" of the behaviour code. This is particularly important now the Government have agreed that bullying-prevention measures must be included. I am particularly grateful to the Government for tabling that amendment. You cannot stop bullying unless you actively involve pupils and teachers in the process.
My noble friend wanted to have "flexibility". The amendment provides for a great deal of flexibility as to how pupils and staff are consulted. This could range from a fairly cursory paper consultation to a full-scale, whole school exercise involving classroom discussions, questionnaires, and so on. However, the amount of work involved would not be sufficiently onerous, given that the Bill already obliges the governing body to consult parents, and the head teacher to take steps to bring the measures to the attention of parents, school employees and pupils every school year.
These, of course, are the reactive arguments to the Government's negative response. The positive arguments are that the value of involving staff and pupils in determining the behaviour codes of schools cannot be overestimated. As regards pupils, the exercise would obviously contribute to their moral and social education (as required under the aims of the national curriculum) and to a greater likelihood of the behaviour codes being understood and upheld by them. As regards teachers and other staff—for example, dinner and playground superintendents, who have to deal with a lot of this misbehaviour—it is extremely foolish to leave them out of the process. Indeed, it would be lowering to their morale and likely to result in unworkable measures. After all, it is the pupils and staff, not the governing body or the parents, who will actually have to put the code into practice. It is extremely important
894
for staff and pupils to be consulted about disciplinary measures. I hope that I shall receive a better response from the Government this time. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords. I rise to speak mainly to Amendment No. 141, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope. The amendment is very similar to one about bullying which we did not discuss earlier in the week but which was, none the less, passed. I believe that it is worth returning to the topic today. The amendment is about anti-bullying policies in schools and we seek to have such a provision on the face of the Bill. Therefore, we strongly welcome the Government's proposed move which was discussed last Tuesday; namely, to have an anti-bullying policy as an absolute, explicit requirement. That is a step forward, which I am sure will be well received by many people who have campaigned outside the House for the rights of minorities among pupils who are often quite routinely harassed or physically attacked by their fellow pupils.
We believe that our amendment would give some guidance on the face of the Bill. In many ways, that guidance is along the lines of the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, which deal with other matters. The provision concerns how head teachers might establish a good and positive climate in their schools with regard to bullying issues. Personal development lessons are called by different terms in different schools but they constitute a good forum in which staff and pupils can work together to discover how they can help pupils who are picked on and how better to protect them. This is a difficult area; sometimes head teachers shy away from it. They need all the encouragement we can give them to try to deal with it.
Often victims are asked to speak to others about their predicament. That brings home to pupils what bullying is and what it means to those who are picked on. It happens for all kinds of reasons—religion, ethnic origin, physical handicap or sometimes because pupils have learning difficulties. It can also happen to pupils who are academically gifted. My daughter desperately tried to pretend that she was not academic because no one in her year was; she knew that that could be thrown at her. I believe that she was probably bullied throughout her progression through the school. Sometimes people are picked on because they are particularly fat or particularly thin. I am sure we have all read of children who have committed suicide because they have been persistently picked on.
I turn to another important matter. In this day and age children are bombarded on television and in magazines with suggestions of how people are expected to behave sexually at an early age. Sometimes people are picked on because, for whatever reason, they are not behaving sexually as others think they should. Some pupils may think they are gay or lesbian—at that age pupils are perhaps not sure about their sexual orientation—because others perceive that they are not going out with the opposite sex. Young girls—I remember my children talking to me about this—do not wish to become sexually active at a young age. There is terrific peer pressure on them. People can be bullied. These are

895
difficult areas to deal with. It is not always realised how pernicious this form of bullying and pressure on young people can be.
We shall not press this provision to a vote. I believe that the Government have recognised the importance of the issue. They have included a measure on the face of the Bill. I welcome that provision. I know that those who have suffered from this behaviour, and parents, teachers and head teachers who have tried to deal with it, will also welcome the provision.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we debated my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 140 and 142A in Committee. She quoted extensively from the reply of my noble friend Lord Whitty on that occasion. There is not a great deal more that I can add. Clause 61 already requires the governing body to consult both the head teacher and parents as part of the governing body's role in drawing up the school's discipline policy. Both have a distinct but valuable contribution to make.
My noble friend seeks to extend that further by requiring the governing body of each maintained school to consult the pupils and the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school before making or revising its statement of general principles on behaviour and discipline. In addition, the head teacher would be required to seek and consider the views of pupils, parents and staff when determining his or her measures on behaviour and discipline.
I agree with my noble friend that it is important to involve pupils and staff when drawing up a school's discipline policy. That is good practice already recommended in the department's guidance on pupil behaviour and discipline. I am afraid I differ from my noble friend in that I do not agree when she says that only legislation has any effect on practice. I believe that guidance can have a great deal of effect. We need to emphasise the point I have just made about good practice in this area at every opportunity, and indeed we shall. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, we want schools to have the flexibility to decide who, when and how to consult. We shall cover the point again in the revised guidance that we shall need to produce once the Bill is enacted.
I turn to Amendment No. 141. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, seeks to insert a reference to bullying on the face of the Bill. The amendment requires head teachers to use,
"personal, social, and health education lessons"
to ensure that,
"pupils are aware that all forms of bullying are unacceptable".
However, many subject areas within the curriculum, not just PSHE, could be used to promote anti-bullying values and co-operative behaviour. This may be achieved directly through reference to individual or group behaviour and its impact on others, as illustrated, for example, by an incident in history during a history lesson, or in current affairs or in an English lesson. Tom Brown's Schooldays comes to mind. We do not wish to
896
prescribe how schools should raise awareness about the effect of bullying, nor indeed restrict it to a particular part of the curriculum. This is an area where schools need flexibility to decide for themselves. What is important is to get schools to take action against bullying. Here the Government are totally in agreement with the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I hope that we have already met the noble Baroness's point by inserting an amendment to Clause 61 to require the head teacher to determine measures, as part of the school's discipline policy, to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils. It would be wrong to be more prescriptive than that in defining exactly how it should happen. I hope that my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will not pursue their amendments.
Amendments Nos. 143 to 145 are technical amendments to correct flaws in the Bill as drafted. Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 ensure that, where the Secretary of State has made regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 11 to the Bill requiring governing bodies to establish discipline committees, all references in Clauses 65 to 68 of the Bill to the governing body are construed as references to the discipline committee. The Bill as currently drafted omits Clause 65 from this definition.
The discipline committee will be a small committee of the governing body which will be able to deal with exclusions cases more conveniently than the full governing body. The exclusions provisions refer to "pupils" rather than "registered pupils" in all cases except in line 34 of Clause 67. Amendment No. 145 deletes the word "registered" to ensure consistency with the rest of the exclusions provisions.
Baroness David: My Lords, I presume that I now respond and leave the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, to respond on her amendments. I am disappointed with my noble friend's reply. Guidance can be ignored, as I said before. It is important that everyone is consulted about the disciplinary code, particularly the staff. I have mentioned dinner ladies and people who are in charge of pupils when they are in the playground. It is important that they should be properly consulted. I am disappointed by what my noble friend said. I responded to what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in Committee, but that does not seem to have carried any weight at all.
The amendment provides for a great deal of flexibility as to how pupils and staff are consulted. It could be done in a number of ways. There are schools councils, and so on, which could be consulted. It is very unwise not to have this provision written on the face of the Bill. However, I see that I am against a stone wall. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage does not recommence before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1998
7.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st June be approved [36th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order will extend the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 under which the government of Northern Ireland is continued by means of direct rule. These arrangements, which have existed for the last quarter of a century, are far from ideal in a democracy. But the good news is that the positive outcome of the referendum and of the elections for the Assembly has demonstrated that there is now sufficient consensus in Northern Ireland for the restoration of a system of government there founded on greater local responsibility.
Against that background, we sincerely hope that this will be the last occasion on which a government shall need to come before the House for the renewal of the direct rule provisions.
The 1974 Act which introduced direct rule will be repealed with the enactment of the Northern Ireland Bill 1998, which gives effect to the Belfast Agreement. As a consequence of the Bill, Northern Ireland will once again become self-governing.
Let me begin by saying that I thoroughly condemn last night's disgraceful sectarian attacks on 10 Roman Catholic churches in Northern Ireland. It is appalling that evil people have returned to this sort of activity at a time when enormous political progress is being made in Northern Ireland. Those who perpetrated these attacks must be brought to justice as quickly as possible.
The Government will not be deflected by the acts of such extremists. Noble Lords may be aware that today the Prime Minister visited one of the churches that was attacked last night, the church of St. James, in Crumlin, County Antrim. He said that the Government were determined to give Northern Ireland a future, leaving barbarism behind.
The Northern Ireland people have made it clear that they want the next generation to grow up in a peaceful, stable and secure society, live normal lives and look forward to brighter prospects. The outcome of the referendum held in Northern Ireland on 22nd May was an outstanding result; 71 per cent. of those who voted supported the Good Friday Agreement, and in the election to the new Northern Ireland Assembly held on 25th June the people of Northern Ireland once again showed their determination to make the agreement work by voting for pro-agreement parties to fill 80 of the seats in the 108-Member Assembly.
Yesterday, the new Northern Ireland Assembly had its inaugural meeting attended by the leaders of unionism, nationalism, loyalism and republicanism—a truly historic day for Northern Ireland and one which its people so rightly deserved. It was a day of new beginnings, providing an opportunity to move away
898
from the divisions of the past three decades and to continue the process of building trust and reconciliation across the community. As one of its first acts of cross-community partnership the new Assembly elected the right honourable Member for Upper Bann and the honourable Member for Newry and Armagh as its First Minister and Deputy First Minister designate. I am sure your Lordships will join with me in sending congratulations to both men and wish them every success. Your Lordships will also wish to send congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on his appointment as the Assembly's initial Presiding Officer.
The new Assembly will now begin to prepare for devolution and the transfer of powers. That will not be an easy task, but the people of Northern Ireland have made plain their views. It is clear that the agreement will be implemented and it is the Government's duty to see that that is done as speedily and effectively as possible.
Major benefits will flow to the Northern Ireland people from the establishment of the new assembly, which will be vested with considerable powers. As noble Lords will already be aware of much of the content of the agreement, I shall not burden them with too much detail. But the main advantages for Northern Ireland are as follows.
The new political structures will be more accountable to the people of Northern Ireland and more responsive to their needs. The people of Northern Ireland will benefit from devolution, just as the people of Scotland and Wales will benefit. Bringing power back to the Northern Ireland people is also likely to play a vital role in healing divisions in Northern Ireland society as people there work together in a co-operative spirit for the greater good. The new North/South Ministerial Council will enable those with ministerial powers to come together to consult, co-operate and take action. The British/Irish Council will allow for representatives from all the different administrations to co-operate and endeavour to reach agreement on a range of issues such as transport links, the environment, health and European Union matters.
Benefits flowing from the Good Friday Agreement will not be confined to political development. In the economic sphere, greater inward investment is likely against the backdrop of peace and more settled and durable political structures.
Nor should it be forgotten that the Good Friday Agreement proposes the establishment of a human rights commission with an extended and enhanced role beyond that currently exercised by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The new human rights commission, and the proposed equality commission, will be established by Westminster legislation.
Finally, the agreement should enable us to adjust security measures as the level of threat is reduced. That does not mean disbanding the RUC, as some of our critics have argued. No one appreciates more than the Government the sacrifices that the RUC has made over the years. Rather, our aim is simple: to provide the best possible police service for the people of Northern Ireland.
To that end, the agreement provides for an independent commission to make recommendations for future policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. The commission's job will be to find ways of achieving that in a way that reflects Northern Ireland's different conditions and cultures.
To sum up, it is the Government's job to put in place all the elements of the agreement endorsed by the people. There are concerns on all sides about different parts of the agreement, but the Government are committed to ensuring that the benefits I have outlined for the people of Northern Ireland stemming from the agreement are achieved.
In the meantime, it is necessary for me to seek your Lordships' approval to renew the statutory provisions underpinning direct rule. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st June be approved [36th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
7.37 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. Northern Ireland has required more than its fair share of time in your Lordships' House recently. As the token Northern Ireland resident who is present for the debate this evening, there are a few points that I wish to make.
First, I read with considerable emotion the account in Hansard of Monday's debate. I greatly regret that I was unable to be in this House to hear the delivery of some truly moving and great speeches from all parts of the Chamber.
Secondly, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, is sorry that he is unable to be present. However, he is otherwise occupied across the water. He and I had a brief discussion this morning about the order; hence I make mention of the noble Lord.
Like the Minister, I hope that today will prove to be truly historic, inasmuch as it will be the last time that this Act will need to be extended in its present form. I understand that at this stage it is usual to debate the pros and cons of direct rule, the performance of the various departments under direct rule etc. I do not intend to go down that road tonight, except to say that democracy in Northern Ireland has been sadly missed. It is high time that it was reinstated.
I hope, and am cautiously optimistic despite Drumcree and last night's terrible escapades, on which I agree with the Minister. One chapel was next-door to the home of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and my own office, in a quiet country village. The happenings are disgraceful. Those concerned should be brought to law as soon as possible. However, I am still optimistic that the Assembly will succeed, and that the formation of the Assembly will prove to be the first truly successful step on the road back to democracy.
However, I do not wish to leave the subject of direct rule in the past without paying tribute to all those Ministers, both from this House and another place, who have committed themselves, and at times their families,
900
to Northern Ireland. Over the past 25 years, under extremely difficult circumstances, we in Northern Ireland have been well served by our Ministers. We owe them a considerable debt of gratitude.
I am a little concerned, however, for the future on a number of issues. The first is the Government's legislative programme to bring about the necessary seamless changeover from direct rule to government by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Will the noble Lord later inform us of how that will take place? Within what timescale and by when can we expect it to have taken place? I gather it is relevant to the length of the renewal tonight. What safeguards will there be in case—I hate to say it—the Assembly just does not work?
Secondly, I should like to mention the effect on the economy that the peace agreement may have. There will undoubtedly be a serious loss of cashflow in the Province from the maintenance of 12,000 soldiers. What that number will come down to we do not know, but I do not imagine that 12,000 soldiers will continue to be there, be maintained there and, indeed, spend money there.
There is the unemployment which will be created by the reduction of civilian employment by the military and the reduction in the amount of security services required generally by industry, airports, transport and so on. I do not know what percentage of the employment there at the lower level is in some form or another security, but it is considerable. The wages are high and the money is spent in the Province. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Treasury is not looking for a bonanza as a result of the peace agreement.
Still on the economy today, we are in the situation where three new parliaments in the three provinces, principalities—or whatever the collective noun is for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—are being set up. There are hundreds of would-be politicians honing their skills and raising the expectations of their electorates. I wonder how many of the promises being promoted can be funded from the central government subvention funds. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give or have given some thought as to how the various provincial parliaments might come together to share experiences and to learn from one another the art of the possible, especially where it concerns their economies. I hope that there will be some mechanism for keeping all three economies broadly in line.
I finish by wishing the Assembly and all its participants good luck, every success and a fair wind, while hoping that this will be the last extension needed for the 1974 Act. I support the order.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I would be grateful if I could speak briefly in the gap. I was not intending to do so until I heard the Minister refer to the human rights commission and the equality commission, both of which I enthusiastically support.
The point I wish to make is that the benefit of the reforms being made in Northern Ireland needs to be matched by similar reforms for Britain. I remember in the 1970s when the fair employment legislation was

901
introduced for Northern Ireland. It was introduced into this House rather than another place while the Sex Discrimination Bill and the Race Relations Bill were introduced in another place, in order to keep the two apart during the legislative process. That was so that MPs would not make the connection between the two.
The result is that we have a fractured equality code with different enforcement mechanisms in Northern Ireland. Now, in legislation soon to be published, we are to have an equality commission and a human rights commission in Northern Ireland. We shall not have the same co-ordinated attack on discrimination in Britain unless we have a similar equality commission. We shall not have a human rights commission in this part of the United Kingdom unless the Government change their views. I realise that the Minister is not responsible for anything other than policy in Northern Ireland. I realise that we are looking at this today in blinkers. But I very much hope that he and his colleagues will aim towards a comprehensive equality code and a comprehensive policy for dealing with human rights on both sides of the Irish sea.
For good measure, perhaps I may add that I also hope that the Government will persuade the Irish Government that they should incorporate the Convention on Human Rights into Irish domestic law so that in all four parts of both islands we have common standards and a common system of enforcement. I am grateful to have been heard on those points.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend spoke in the gap. His very long commitment not only to human rights in general but also to human rights in Northern Ireland and his familiarity with the Republic of Ireland make his last point well worth considering by the Government. I wonder whether the new council of the islands might take on board the great desirability, probably through the European Convention, of creating a common culture of rights throughout the British isles, including the Republic of Ireland.
I apologise to the Minister for my discourtesy in not being in the Chamber to hear him present the reasons for the renewal of the order. I am afraid London traffic is not as aware of the necessity for promptness as Members of your Lordships' House. I doubt whether, on this occasion, he would have said much to surprise anyone in the Chamber in that this is the 25th time that the order has been renewed. It is now part of the ritual. It is like so many features of British life, what is done initially as a temporary measure—like the Official Secrets Act 1911—rapidly becomes permanent. So we go from year to year being interim and temporary.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and this year we hope that what is interim really is interim and that we are about to see the Good Friday Agreement ready to emerge as the better way of governing Northern Ireland.
Those of us, like the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Dubs, who grapple with Northern Ireland issues regularly in this House must be aware that there is a
902
better way of doing things than the way we do them: trying to impose direct rule from Whitehall, Westminster and Stormont on the Province. That was brought home to me when I received, as I did the other day, a statutory instrument from the Northern Ireland road service. It detailed how a particular road in the Province is to be redirected, with a little map enclosed showing the current road, the planned new road and a few dotted lines showing what appeared to be absolutely minute differences between the two. It is one of the hopes we all have for the Good Friday Agreement that it will not only produce political reconciliation, but also allow people from Northern Ireland to grapple with decisions that affect them closely instead of us here purporting to do it on their behalf, often, it has to be said, as with the issue I have just mentioned, from the standpoint of considerable ignorance.
If this is to be interim, it will be because we have passed legislation for a better way of governing Northern Ireland. Would the Minister care to outline when we should expect to see the remaining parts of the legislation and the form they will take to make good the Good Friday Agreement in terms of your Lordships' House?
Before I sit down, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was right to remind us of this point. If we achieve the peace we all hope for in Northern Ireland, if we see the running down of the military presence and no longer have the vast expense of rebuilding where there has been bombing, reconstructing the depredations of the war that has gone on with the terrorists for so long, if we do not have to support expenditure on military and security forces, I hope that the Treasury will not simply pocket the sum as the peace dividend. If there is a peace dividend, it should not be for the Treasury; it should be reinvested in Northern Ireland. It will not be easy to turn Northern Ireland from a culture which is truly state dependent into one of greater economic and commercial independence. It will take time and will need a lot of patience from the Treasury over that period.
Perhaps I can briefly raise the question of the traditional march from the church at Drumcree, which is due to take place within a few days. There is a great temptation to try and second guess whether or not the march should go ahead, where it should take place and on what terms. But it is no longer for this House to make those decisions. As a House we delegated that decision to the Parades Commission when we voted to put the parades Bill on to the statute book a few months ago.
The Parades Commission has had a difficult role. It faced resignations and reconstituted itself. It has a controversial and difficult job. It has an excellent chairman in Alistair Graham. It reached a decision on the march this year and decided that it should be diverted away from the Garvaghy Road. Whatever we think of that decision, it is incumbent upon us to ask the people of Northern Ireland and the political leaders of Northern Ireland and this country to respect that decision and, if necessary, to enforce it.
I use the word "enforce", but we all realise that that may result in a bad outcome. There is still time for compromise on the details of the march and on how the

903
decision is finally turned into action. We must remember that the Parades Commission leaves a lot of latitude for compromise on the ground. I urge all those involved not merely to show restraint—that is required from both republicans and loyalists—in fuelling the flames of sectarian edginess, but also, more constructively, for the unionist and the nationalist leaders—we all admired the handshake between David Trimble and Seamus Mallon—to work together. They must bend all efforts to try to reach the sort of compromise on the ground that will save the honour of all those involved and thus secure the future.
I hope that the Government, in the remaining hours and days before the march, recognise that the decision must be adhered to; that the rule of law must be respected; and that there is room for statesmanlike compromise on the ground.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I support and endorse the Minister's condemnation of the attacks on churches last night. It is invidious to pick out one adjacent to the house of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and the office of my noble friend Lord Glentoran. However, that demonstrates the way in which attacks of that kind come home personally to individuals in Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that the RUC will be able to bring those responsible to justice as soon as possible. I also echo the call for compromise on the ground at Drumcree, mentioned a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
It is a sad commentary on the affairs of Northern Ireland that direct rule, introduced for one year in 1974, should have lasted for nearly a quarter of a century. I thank my noble friend Lord Glentoran for his thanks to those of us who have had the privilege to serve in the Northern Ireland Office under direct rule. People sometimes ask me which of the various offices I was privileged to hold over the 15 years I was in government I enjoyed the most. They are rather surprised when I say that it was my time in the Northern Ireland Office. I felt that the job was real and worthwhile. It also flowed a little from the fact that one's powers under direct rule were a good deal more direct than the sort of influence that one was able to exert in committees in other Whitehall departments when struggling to tackle other problems.
Direct rule—a form of benign dictatorship—under governments of both parties provided good government and government generally acceptable to the people. It has considerable achievements to its credit over the years, though today is perhaps not the time to list them.
I believe also, as I have expressed in your Lordships' House before, that direct rule has been exercised in the Province for much longer than is good for democracy. I share the hope expressed by the Minister and others that it will soon be substantially replaced by the powers of the new assembly under the Northern Ireland Bill which we are promised relatively shortly. No doubt the Minister will respond to the request to tell us how soon we and another place can expect the Bill to arrive.
904
I am not urging haste on the Government over that Bill. It is an extremely important Bill which should be prepared with great care. I am sure that both Houses will respond to it in a manner which will enable it to pass through Parliament properly. However, it needs great care. It should not be rushed through, though it may be difficult to fit it into the parliamentary timetable at the moment.
We all wish the new assembly well, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—our parliamentary colleague—who is to take the chair and will no doubt at times have a difficult job. However, I am sure that he will carry it out with his usual skill and ability. Also, I send best wishes to David Trimble and Seamus Mallon as they take up their new duties. They will have a difficult time and I am sure that the assembly will encounter all sorts of problems. No doubt we shall have cause to criticise it from time to time in the decisions it makes and in the way it acts. But both Members of this House and the people of Northern Ireland have a deep desire that the assembly should succeed. We hope therefore that this interim period extension order for one year is the last that we have to pass in this House. It is necessary to pass it and I commend it to the House.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate for their positive, helpful and supportive comments. I appreciate the tributes paid by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to Northern Ireland Ministers. It is an enormous privilege to serve as a Minister in Northern Ireland—a view shared by all those who have had that opportunity. It is a rewarding job. The people are warm, responsive, affectionate, friendly and welcoming. If we achieve our main task, which is to bring permanent peace to Northern Ireland, that will be a further reward.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about the legislative programme for the future, as did the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Cope. I cannot say when further legislation will be introduced. I am tempted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, "shortly". It is clearly understood that the Government intend to introduce an important Bill—the Northern Ireland Bill—which will deal with all other aspects of the agreement that need to be put into statutory form, apart from sentencing. The Bill dealing with that has already had its Second Reading here. The Northern Ireland Bill will not be a large Bill. We hope to introduce it shortly and that it will be passed by both Houses of Parliament by the end of this Session. It will be quite a task for us to deal with what will be a large, complicated and complex measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also asked about safeguards. If there are to be any safeguards—and we are hopeful that we need not talk too much about safeguards—they will be contained in the Bill enabling the assembly to function in full form as opposed to the shadow form under which it is now operating. If the noble Lord wishes to add further safeguards, no doubt he will put down amendments in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was rather pessimistic about the economic prospects of Northern Ireland. His argument was that, with the prospect of a

905
proper peaceful basis for society there, there will be a need for fewer security forces. That will mean less spending in Northern Ireland, which would have a damaging effect on the economy.
There is a counter-argument. The Chancellor of the Exchequer visited Northern Ireland recently and announced a very important package of several hundred million pounds to help with the infrastructure of the Northern Ireland economy. Extra sums of money have come to the farmers of Northern Ireland. They will say it is not enough, but there are certainly sums of money there. Above all, when peace comes we shall be able to attract a much greater level of inward investment. That in turn will lead to more jobs and greater wealth for all the people of Northern Ireland.
The Government are working to encourage more inward investment from all over the world, including North America, in order that we can provide a sounder commercial and industrial base for Northern Ireland and create more jobs and more wealth. Our ability to attract more inward investment will be the most significant economic fact, in addition to tourism, in Northern Ireland. It will make up for any decline in spending on security matters.
That decline in spending on security matters will only happen as and when the security situation permits. I am much more optimistic about the prospects for the Northern Ireland economy than the noble Lord suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, spoke about the peace dividend. That is something of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware. I have already referred to his recent package. He will be sensitive to the points made by the noble Lord as to what is to happen when security expenditure falls.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the problem is that one can agree with the Minister's long-term analysis of peace over a period attracting inward investment and tourism improving. I believe that may happen. At the same time, we must recognise that that will take some years and there may well be a major transitional problem. It would not require the Northern Ireland economy to go cold turkey on the prospect of future growth, but the management of the transitional period will be extremely important.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. There may well be a transitional period which we will have to manage carefully. I hope that the European Union will be sensitive to that situation as well. The European Union has been very helpful in contributing sums of money under various headings—peace and reconciliation, and so on—which have been of enormous benefit to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord's point is well taken.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I wish to make the point that I hope that neither the Chancellor nor anyone else will think security expenditure will go down that steeply. I believe that there will be a considerable security problem remaining, both from the breakaway
906
groups and the rackets. Any attempt to drive down the security expenditure too quickly could be extremely dangerous. At the same time, I share the view that there will be great encouragement to the economy from peace, if it flows forward, and that over a period of time that will help take over from the decreased security expenditure.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. The Government's priority is to maintain the level of security forces necessary to ensure the safety of the people of Northern Ireland, to ensure that the law is kept and to reduce to an absolute minimum the activities of those small groups that are not party to the ceasefire. That consideration must come first. I did say that we would reduce the level of the security forces and the provision of security generally only if and when the circumstances on the ground allow it. Not before. That is very important. We are at one on that. I thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to emphasise the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was being slightly mischievous—he conceded that he was—in making a point which he knows very well is not for the Northern Ireland Minister. His point is of interest. It is possible that the British-Irish Council, one of the structures which will be set up under the agreement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred in his speech, might well be an interesting context for debate and discussion about human rights and equality matters between Northern Ireland, the republic, England, the UK Government and Wales and Scotland. There may well be a chance to share experiences there of different approaches to dealing with human rights and equality.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord thought I might be being mischievous. What I was trying to say is that when we are engaged in constitutional reform, what we do in one part of the United Kingdom should be on good speaking terms with the rest. We are talking about common, basic human rights. It is very important that our rights should not differ in their content or enforcement according to whether we happen to be in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England—or for that matter, on basic questions, in the republic. That is not mischievous but in the public interest. A good constitution is one that ensures that our rights are safeguarded by equal protection throughout both islands. I would be surprised if that was controversial as a matter of principle. I am troubled that we are looking at it in blinkers when we look at a particular piece of legislation for one part of the country.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. When I said "mischievous", I meant in addressing the point to me. The point is not mischievous but asking a Northern Ireland Minister to deal with it had a touch of mischief to it.
I understand what the noble Lord is saying. He will recognise that the Government for the United Kingdom as a whole have made important progress as regards human rights. I know of the noble Lord's long-standing attachment and commitment to that cause.

907
The Government have moved forward in the whole of the United Kingdom. If the way we are moving forward in Northern Ireland is different, it is intended to reflect the particular circumstances there, as perceived more recently by the parties to the agreement who clearly incorporated some of these ideas within the agreement on Good Friday. I was merely suggesting that the British-Irish Council might well be a positive context in which such different experiences might be exchanged, with a view to seeing lessons from one member of the British-Irish Council being applied elsewhere. I do not wish to say any more otherwise I will be falling into the trap that has perhaps been set for me. There will be an important framework and the British-Irish Council will have an important part to play. The noble Lord has already developed some of the agenda for future meetings.
The noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Cope, made some positive points about Drumcree and the difficulties that may be faced this weekend. I am grateful for the comments that have been made. It is clear that the Parades Commission has come to its view. I share the wish that all those involved will show restraint and compromise on the ground and that the decision by the Parades Commission will be respected and adhered to. However, as the noble Lord said, there is still time for compromise and for some sort of agreement on the ground. If that were to happen it would be a better way forward than simply the Parades Commission saying, "This is the route that the parade will follow". The Prime Minister, who has been in Northern Ireland today, stands ready to do whatever he can to help address the consequences of the ruling not to allow the Orange Order march down the Garvaghy Road. The Prime Minister supports the commission's stance. He was aware that there would have been consequences whatever decision the Parades Commission had arrived at. We are aware of that from previous years. What is important is that people on the ground have it within their hands to deal with this better than the Parades Commission.
In the debates we had earlier in the Session on the legislation leading to the setting up of the Parades Commission on a statutory basis, much emphasis was placed by many noble Lords on the need for compromises and local agreements as the best way forward. However, the Parades Commission had to pronounce and had to make a determination. It could not leave it much later than it did. So that was the news we had earlier this week. But there is still time and I know that people are working on the ground to try to achieve a compromise. We all hope that they will be successful in that endeavour.
I think I have dealt with all the points that were made. Despite the short-term difficulties ahead of us, I feel optimistic about the future for Northern Ireland, both political and economic. I am grateful to all noble Lords for the supportive contributions they have made in the debate. It is a good moment because this is the last time, we hope, that such an order will ever be put before Parliament.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.30 p.m.]

School Standards and Framework Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 61.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 48, line 28, at end insert ("and, in particular, preventing all forms of bullying among pupils").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 142A not moved.]
Clause 65 [Exclusion of pupils: duty to inform parents, etc.]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 51, line 18, at end insert—
("(6) Where regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 11 require the governing body of a maintained school to establish a discipline committee, references in this section and sections 66 to 68 to the governing body of such a school shall be construed as references to their discipline committee.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Functions of governing body in relation to excluded pupils]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 143A:
Page 51. line 35, at end insert—
("( ) Where the relevant person in subsection (2) is the parent, the governing body shall also allow the pupil to make written representations and to appear and make oral representations at a meeting about the exclusion.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to a series of amendments which deal with disciplinary procedures. This amendment stands alone. It suggests that,
"the governing body shall also allow the pupil to make written representations and to appear and make oral representations at a meeting"
concerning his or her exclusion from the school. Our view is that it is a matter of good practice and also of principle.
At present, the right to make representations to the governing body following a decision to exclude a child permanently attaches only to the parent or to children who are 18 years or more—in other words, they are not children but adults. Yet the right to attend the hearing where the future of one's education is at stake is a matter of natural justice. Although in some schools and authorities children are encouraged to attend, it is far from the normal pattern. A Children's Society project, working with disaffected children in south London, observed recently that it had never been successful in persuading the school to allow either the child or the worker in that project to attend the hearing.
There is also a connection with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by the United Kingdom Government in 1991. The Committee on the Rights of the Child—the international body responsible for monitoring governments' compliance with the convention—specifically criticised the failure to respect the right of children to attend such hearings when it examined the UK Government in 1995.
From my own experience I know how valuable it can be to have the child present when discussing the child's behaviour and the potential for exclusion or, after exclusion, whether the child can return to school.
There are many reasons why children are their own best advocates. For example, if parents have less linguistic facility than their children they may be less able to explain what is going on than their children. There are some children—perhaps a small minority—whose parents are incapable of reaching school and whose problems arise from the child's own need to look after the parents. There are also parents who are addicts of one sort or another. The child's ability to attend school is very much affected by the parents' behaviour.
As I say, I have witnessed the effect of this in a particular case where one of those conditions applied. In all these cases it seems very sensible to allow the child, even if quite a young one, to try to explain what is going on to the governing body or to the committee which the governing body has set up for the purpose.
For all these reasons I am hopeful that the Minister will look with some sympathy on the ideas contained in this amendment and the two later amendments which I shall speak to. It is an important series of amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to make some suggestions or a response which shows that the Government understand the points that we are making and their importance. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I begin by emphasising that there is nothing in law to prevent the governing body from permitting a pupil under 18 to attend the meeting when they review his or her exclusion. In many cases governing bodies already permit excluded pupils to attend these meetings. I understand the case that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, is making. We propose to use guidance to encourage schools to allow older pupils to attend the governors' meeting to present their own case. In the kind of case which the noble Baroness cited, I am sure that the school would want to invite the child to attend.
It will not be appropriate in every case, particularly where younger children are involved, to suggest that a pupil should attend the governors' meeting. While the amendment before us would not force the pupil to be present at the governing body hearing, I am a little concerned that, by placing this right on the face of the Bill, we might create an expectation that the pupil should be there. That might lead to governors drawing negative conclusions about a pupil who exercises his right not to be present. The noble Baroness would certainly want to avoid that.
910
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, agrees that the use of guidance represents the best way of allowing children to be present and to give their views without placing too much pressure on all excluded pupils to make representations. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. It goes some way towards achieving the objective that we were seeking. However, she did not respond to the points about the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is quite important. According to the convention,
"the child shall … be provided with the opportunity to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly or through a representative or appropriate body in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law".
One could certainly make a procedural rule which would be acceptable under national law. I do not want to oblige the Minister to respond again because that is not within the rules of Report stage. Perhaps she will write to me on that point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 52, line 28, leave out subsection (9).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [Appeals against exclusion of pupils]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 52, line 34, leave out ("registered").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 52, line 44, leave out ("either").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 are examples of where the presence of a child might be extremely useful, particularly if it makes it possible for an appeals panel, in dealing with an exclusion, to direct that a pupil can be reinstated if he or she complies with reasonable conditions set down by the panel. If one is to discuss what "reasonable conditions" might be, then it is extremely helpful to have the pupil present at the hearing at which the matters are determined.
I refer again to the incident of which I have personal experience. If I remember correctly, the pupil was a pre-O-level child of perhaps 14 or 15 but well below the age of 18. It proved useful to discuss with the child how she should behave and the school's expectations of her if she were allowed back again. Such discussion enabled her to agree those expectations so that she could attempt the process of obeying. She knew clearly why those provisions had been set and why she had to obey them. The process enabled the disciplinary procedure—it is difficult because none of us wishes to exclude more children than we must from school—to be taken forward

911
in a more humane way, involving the child as well as the board of governors and other responsible adults. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I sympathise with the intention behind these amendments, which is to increase the likelihood that an appeal panel is able to direct reinstatement. However, while the notion of introducing conditions is attractive in theory, I fear that it may be unworkable in practice. I am concerned that by allowing the appeal panel to place a condition on a pupil's readmission we might inadvertently make it more difficult for pupils to be successfully reintegrated following a permanent exclusion.
An obvious condition of reinstatement would be that the pupil does not repeat the offence for which he or she was excluded. Under the existing arrangements, if an appeal panel is persuaded that an excluded pupil's behaviour will improve, it can reinstate him or her. If in the event he or she nonetheless misbehaves seriously again, he or she can be excluded again. Importantly, however, under this model his or her parents retain their rights of appeal.
Under the proposed amendment it appears to me that a pupil could be permanently excluded simply because the head teacher considers that the pupil had breached the conditions of readmission. Parents of pupils whom the head teacher had already tried permanently to exclude without success would be left with no right of appeal against this second exclusion. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that this cannot be right. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lady Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister has drawn attention to a possible defect in the wording of the amendment. We shall consider the matter carefully. However, there is an additional advantage of the procedure we suggest, provided that we can find a framework which is correct. Often those permanent exclusions are surrounded by publicity. When the school re-admits the pupil it looks as though the school is somehow giving way to pressure from a tearaway or group of tearaways. I use language that no one uses any more, but the Minister knows what I am talking about.
It is better for the child and for public relations if it can be demonstrated clearly that return to the school is accompanied by a series of conditions which the pupil has accepted and which oblige the pupil at least to maintain a tolerable level of co-operation within the life of the school and of obedience to the ethos of the school.
I hope that the Minister will consider whether she can come back with other suggestions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Clause 68 [Exclusion of pupils: guidance]:
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 53, line 9, after ("guidance") insert ("subject to section (Making and approval of general guidance on exclusion of pupils)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment relates to guidance. We have talked tonight and on a previous occasion at some length on the subject; I do not wish to do so today. The amendment deals with social exclusion. The Government have taken note of the Social Exclusion Unit report. I believe that they are ensuring that such guidance has statutory force. Their intention is to end the inappropriate use of exclusions for minor incidents.
It is an important area. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a little more detail on how the Government wish to give effect to the report through guidance and the provisions of the Bill. For example, the Social Exclusion Unit recommended that local education authorities be informed after one day when a pupil has been excluded for more than five days. I am not sure how that will be dealt with. There is a view that the issue should be spelt out more clearly in the Bill.
In a sense the amendment probes how the Government wish to give effect to the findings of the social exclusion report through the Bill and through guidance. I look to the Minister to put some flesh on the bones. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the spirit in which the noble Baroness moved the amendment. I promise that I shall not drone on about guidance. She asked me specifically about exclusion and referred helpfully to the social exclusion unit. Perhaps I may respond to that aspect of the argument.
The Social Exclusion Unit was concerned that, while the majority of schools use exclusion rarely and responsibly, a small minority was excluding pupils much more readily. Under the amended legislation the head teacher and the governing body will be required to have regard to the new guidance on exclusion, strengthening a parent's case when it comes to an independent appeal. This provides an important additional safeguard for parents.
I fully recognise the importance of consulting on the guidance on exclusion, in particular now that head teachers, governors and LEAs will be required to have regard to the guidance. We intend to issue draft guidance in the autumn to a wide range of interested parties for consultation, and will take full account of the responses when finalising the guidance.
However, as I hope the noble Baroness now recognises, the role of the various pieces of guidance varies considerably. The code of practice on admissions, for example, will offer practical guidance on the entirely new functions which LEAs, governing bodies, appeal panels and adjudicators will have to discharge once the Bill receives Royal Assent. By contrast the exclusions guidance will build upon the roles and responsibilities which are currently set out in Circular 10/94 (Exclusion from School). Therefore, we shall be taking account of the report of the Social Exclusion Unit. We shall be

913
building on the existing rules from Circular 10/94. We shall consult widely. In advance of the consultation, I do not think that it is possible for me to go further than that.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. It is helpful to people outside the House. The amendments are tabled partly in response to local authorities and others which have concerns about how guidance will work in practice. Social exclusions from school have been a controversial area. We all wish to see them used sensibly.
We shall consider the Minister's reply carefully. Many people will be keeping an eye on the situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
Schedule 19 [Required provision for religious education]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 194, line 24, leave out ("provide") and insert ("prescribe").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government agreed at Committee to consider an amendment identical to Amendment No. 150, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The noble Lord argued that his formulation made it clearer that pupils did not have to take part in the same daily act of worship. Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 20 to the Bill provides, as does current legislation, that schools may provide separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or in different school groups. We have reflected on the wording and have decided to accept the noble Lord's alternative. He looks rather surprised.
Amendments Nos. 151 and 152 have been tabled at the suggestion of parliamentary counsel. They do not affect the sense of the provision which relates to the period by which former grant-maintained schools must revert to their home LEA's locally agreed syllabus for RE. They simply tidy up the wording of Schedule 19 ensuring that this sub-paragraph in respect of foundation and voluntary schools with a religious character mirrors the identical provision at paragraph 2(4) of the schedule which applies to schools without a religious character. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Tope, recovers from the shock of what has just been said, perhaps I may put two questions to the noble Baroness. The first arises in relation to Amendment No. 150 which inserts "prescribe" and deletes "provide". It then inserts
"that syllabus shall be treated for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) as an agreed syllabus adopted for the school or (as the case may be) those pupils".
Perhaps I may confirm that my understanding is correct. Is it correct that where a grant-maintained school has adopted a syllabus from another local authority, not its own—that was one of the freedoms of grant-maintained schools—or a different agreed syllabus, for the purposes of transferring to a foundation school it can transfer that
914
same syllabus which shall be deemed to be the agreed syllabus? If that is the meaning of the amendment I welcome it.
I should like to put a second question that is not related to the same amendment but is concerned with the same subject. In sub-paragraph (3)(b), which appears just above the provision that is to be altered by the amendment, reference is made to foundation governors making
"arrangements for securing that such religious education is given to those pupils in the school during not more than two periods in each week".
I do not take issue with that. That is probably the usual time that is taken up by religious education in any school. But is it right for the Government to prescribe that it shall be not more than two periods a week? It may be that a school wishes to teach religious education for three or even four periods a week. It is normal for governments to prescribe minima but not maxima in terms of how many periods are devoted to the teaching of any particular subject.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not understand what the second question has to do with the amendment. However, perhaps I may deal with the first question. Section 382 of the 1996 Act permits grant-maintained schools that were formerly county or controlled schools to select an agreed syllabus adopted by any local education authority.
They are not confined to the syllabus adopted by the authority for the area in which the school is situated. It makes no sense for some schools but not others to have this right under the new school framework. We suspect that relatively few former grant-maintained schools have actually taken advantage of it, but those that have must revert to the locally agreed syllabus within a period to be prescribed by order. I am afraid that I shall disappoint the noble Baroness in that respect. We shall consult on the period but we expect that it may be five or seven years. That will allow schools to ensure that pupils who have started with one agreed syllabus do not need to switch part-way through their school careers. Similarly, it will not prevent schools from changing more quickly if they prefer that to using different agreed syllabuses with different year groups.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may put one more question. Given that we are legislating and that this amendment will be passed today, has there been any consultation with the grant-maintained schools on the proposition that the agreed syllabuses that have been adopted will have to be abandoned as they become foundations schools? This is another loss of autonomy for those schools.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, grant-maintained schools have been consulted on every aspect of the Bill. I should be extremely surprised if they had not been consulted on this particular issue.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I have now recovered from my shock. I thank the Minister for Amendment No. 152 which bears a striking resemblance to an amendment

915
that I moved in Committee. I thank the Minister not only for listening but for hearing. I hope that she has not found it too painful and suggest that now we have begun the process it can continue. Maybe the Minister will listen with even greater attention to further amendments that I move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 194, leave out line 26 and insert ("that syllabus shall be treated for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) as an agreed syllabus adopted for the school or (as the case may be) those pupils.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Requirements relating to collective worship]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 54, line 2, leave out ("all pupils") and insert ("each pupil").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 153:
After Clause 74, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFER OF LAND BY GOVERNING BODY TO TRUSTEES
(".—(l) Where a building is to be provided for a foundation or voluntary school and the building—

(a) is to form part of the school premises, and

(b) is to be constructed partly on land held by the governing body and partly on land held on trust for the purposes of the school by persons other than the governing body,

the governing body shall transfer to those persons the land held by the governing body on which the building is to be constructed.
(2) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 22 does not apply to any transfer required by subsection (1).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 153 and speak to Amendments Nos. 154 to 161. We come back to land transfers. This group of amendments consists mainly of technical amendments to the provisions for the ownership and disposal of land for voluntary, foundation and foundation special schools. Amendment No. 153 introduces provisions for voluntary and foundation schools to reflect those introduced in 1993 for grant-maintained schools. Amendment No. 155 is a technical amendment to correct an omission. Where governors of a grant-maintained school received grants when the school was first established they would have been required to transfer their interest in the site to trustees. This amendment provides that when trustees sell such land they will be subject to the same rules which apply to disposals of land which has benefited from other types of grant-maintained school grants.
Amendments Nos. 154, 156 and 157 are technical amendments which correct references in the Bill to disposals of land "under" paragraphs 1 and 3(1) of Schedule 22. These paragraphs do not confer a power to make a disposal and therefore the correct reference should be disposals "within" these paragraphs.
Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 correct an error in paragraph 4 of Schedule 22. This paragraph already enables LEAs to apply to the Secretary of State to have surplus land that was transferred to a school when it became grant-maintained returned to the authority in
916
circumstances where it is surplus and is needed as a site for a new or transferring school. This technical amendment extends that element of these provisions which relates to group foundations. Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 are very technical amendments. They make clear that we are dealing with disposals of land which has been either provided or enhanced with public funds as set out in paragraph 3(1) and (2). It is only such land that is subject to control in these clauses. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in addressing these amendments the noble Lord referred to the disposal of land when the school enjoyed a grant-in-aid in order to build the facility, whatever it might be. Let us consider a grant-maintained school that has a facility, be it a sports field, a completely free-standing building or part of a building that has been wholly provided either by voluntary subscription or quite independently of the state. If that is disposed of on transfer to foundation status who is the beneficiary of the moneys?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is referring to a case where there are two separate pieces of land, one of which is part of the school at the time of transfer to grant-maintained status and one of which is subsequently acquired through private provision. Is that the distinction that the noble Baroness makes?
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was not comparing them. I understood that the noble Lord addressed only a facility in a school that may have been disposed of where grant in aid was part of the contribution to producing that facility. My example related to where the state had no part in resourcing the facility that might be disposed of by a GM school on becoming a foundation school. Who will be the recipient of the money?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, where it is clear that the facility has been acquired subsequent to the transfer which involved local authority resources, it would normally revert to a trust. I believe that that was covered, in part at least, by the correspondence that I provided to the noble Baroness. I shall check on that, and, if necessary, I shall write to her again.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 22 [Disposals of land in case of certain schools and disposals on discontinuance]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 154 to 161:
Page 201, line 26, leave out ("under") and insert ("within").
Page 202, line 45, at end insert ("or any grant paid under section 216(2) of that Act;").
Page 203, line 25, leave out ("under sub-paragraph (1)") and insert ("within sub-paragraph (1) or (2)").
Page 204, line 6, leave out ("under") and insert ("within").
Page 204, line 23, leave out from ("land") to ("and") in line 27 and insert—

("(i) held, or held on trust, for the purposes of a foundation, voluntary or foundation special school by the governing body or the trustees of the school, or

917

(ii) held by a foundation body for the purposes of the group of schools for which it acts,

is not required for the purposes of the school or (as the case may be) those schools;").
Page 204, line 35, after ("school") insert (", or (as the case may be) one of the schools, mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a)").
Page 205, line 30, leave out ("held by them for the purposes of the school") and insert ("falling within paragraph 3(1) or (2)").
Page 206, line 8, leave out ("held by them for the purposes of the school") and insert ("falling within paragraph 3(1) or (2)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 83 [Code of practice]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 161A:
Page 61, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The code of practice shall enable schools or admission authorities to interview parents or pupils (or both) as part of the application or admission process.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 161B, 161C, and 163A. I am surrounded by such expertise that I feel that I am receiving support. I am sure that noble Lords will all agree with the amendments. I shall make two general points to start with. First, there is an ideological divide between the Government and us regarding central direction. As I have said many times from this Dispatch Box, we prefer schools to have some initiative in their choice of the most potent elements that make a school successful.
My second point is more personal and anecdotal. I am sure that noble Lords opposite are tired of hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and myself talking about our old days in school mastering and "school mistressing". A school is a community. A school can be either a successful community or an unsuccessful community. One of these amendments is an ideological one with which I shall deal separately, because I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with ideological conflict at this stage of the evening, but it will come.
Amendments Nos. 161A and 161C relate to community. The admissions procedure forbids schools to interview parents. I assume that the Government introduced that provision for ideological motives. They thought that the school might look for better off parents, for instance. I am puzzled as to why they are doing it. I should be interested to hear the Minister tell me why the Government do not want schools to interview parents. The schools are not looking at their suits, whether they drive a large motor car, whether they are clean or dirty, or anything like that. When you interview parents you are looking to see whether they relate to the school and you relate to them; whether you feel that you can have a sensitive working relationship which will release the fullest potential of their children.
As a former head master, I would find it amazing if one did not see the parents and the child to discuss matters. The idea that one makes decisions without regard to people is wrong. You could qualify the provision and say, "You can't decide admissions on the following criteria", but I find it amazing that a school is not allowed to interview except for the purpose of deciding religious denomination.
I will not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, by talking about Durham again, but when I went to my school in Crook the head master had my grandmother and myself in to have a little chat. He wanted to see whether I related to the school. I had been evacuated. That seemed to be natural. But Her Majesty's Government have decided to forbid that. My first question is: why do the Government forbid it? Why cannot the school talk to parents? Why cannot they have a little interview? The parents could say, "We do not like the laboratories", or "The toilets are not very good", or whatever it may be. It might be, "We do not like you". At the moment that is forbidden. Amendment No. 161A raises the question as to why there should be a total prohibition on interviewing parents except to discover whether they are Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Moslems, or whatever. That is amazing as regards the community of the school.
The parents and the school are not allowed to enter into an agreement as to how the child's education should go ahead. As a former school mistress, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, would say and, as a former school master and head master—I was a head master not a head mistress—I would say that it is crucial that the parents, the school and the pupil get on; that they have a mutual, sensitive, co-operative relationship.
When I interviewed parents the pupil was there as well. I used to talk about the school and ask the pupil whether it was the school to which he or she wanted to go. One used to ask the parents whether it was the school to which they wanted the child to go. One would ask, "Do you like me?". Out of that would emerge the agreement described in Amendment No. 161C. I am interested to know why the Government think that such sensitive, caring agreements are not possible. The Government may believe that they are possible or they may agree with me.
We now enter the more controversial areas. Amendment No. 161B provides that:
"The code of practice shall not require schools that are over-subscribed to keep open vacancies specifically to accept disruptive children".
I introduce that point merely because to do so would cause enormous controversy. Perhaps your Lordships can imagine a situation in a tight-knit community where tensions exist. There is a good school to which many parents wish to send their children who are being refused in order to admit disruptive children. I am not saying that disruptive children should not be cared for. I am merely pointing out the sensitive social relations which could occur, particularly in tight-knit communities where everyone knows everyone else, as in Somerset where I live. I can assure your Lordships that such action would cause enormous distress. I am not saying that it is wrong, but I am asking whether the draftsmen have thought about what happens in a community where everyone knows everyone else.
I move to Amendment No. 163A, which the Government, from their ideological position, will find easy to deal with. It inserts the words:
"or would be incompatible with the school's own admission arrangements".

919
One does not have to be a genius to say, "If it were admitting its academic criteria". I do not believe that there is anything wrong if a school adopts such a policy and it works. I believe in flexibility and I believe that it works. However, we have fought the matter during the 10 days in which we have dealt with the Bill and therefore I shall not dwell on it. I merely point out that centralisation is strong. The adjudicators make a judgment examining the admission arrangements and so forth.
I conclude with what is the most passionate part of my presentation. The school is a community. To reject Amendment No. 161A and, to a degree, Amendment No. 161C denies the community status. I remind the House that almost 60 years ago headmasters and headmistresses of village schools used to see parents, talk to little Charlie and admit such children to the school; it is part of the essence of any community exercise in admitting children. Yet Her Majesty's Government have decided to legislate against that. I find it amazing. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I appear to have been implicated in the amendments by their presentation as though I might support everything that is proposed. There appears to be some confusion about people's intentions. I would not want to see children being interviewed for a school before it has been decided that they have a right to attend the school. It is a case of it being the choice of the parent, the area in which they live, there being a place at the school and so the child will go there.
In most school communities the head teachers set up a system which enables the parents to visit them and the teachers to discuss many of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. We are concerned that if it is set up in a certain way children or parents who seem less desirable might be excluded from the school. If we are providing state education for all our children we cannot allow that to happen. Therefore, I have a difference of opinion.
In many schools, head teachers and teachers try to build the best relationships they can with the parents. I am now moving into the area that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said people were fed up with, but at least we bring our experience to it. I was chair of the governors of a first school and I know that the head mistress used to visit the homes of the children who it was known would attend the school. She tried to build up a rapport in order to ensure that the children knew her and were not afraid of going into school.
One of the big problems with parents building a relationship with the school is that for many people school is not a happy place. They feel intimidated and threatened the moment they walk through the door of a school. It is important that we recognise that and do everything that we can to enable parents to feel comfortable and feel that they have a right to talk to the teachers and get to know them. I do not believe that any of us would think that that was the wrong thing to do. However, many of us would be really concerned if we thought that because we did not like something about someone whom we were interviewing, that meant that
920
the child would not be able to attend that school. That would be quite wrong and I should not support anything which did that.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is it or is it not a fact that city technology colleges interview parents before admitting pupils? If it is, as I believe to be the case, will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, tell the House whether that interview is conducted along lines similar to those proposed in Amendment No. 161A, moved by my noble friend Lord Pilkington?
My second point is in relation to interviews with parents. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, it is invaluable for a school to talk to the parents of the child. If we are really seeking to find a way to deal with truancy and parents who are not as supportive of their children at school as they might be, it is absolutely essential that the school should talk to the parents of the children; otherwise, it is extremely difficult to build a good relationship. One needs the parents to support the school and the teacher in what the school is trying to achieve.
I believe that it is far more valuable to interview parents before the children come to the school. I entirely take my noble friend's point. After all, the school may not be the first choice of the parents and they may not like the prospect before them. Therefore, it is even more important that they should have the opportunity to discuss those matters. That is absolutely essential if we are genuinely trying to achieve something to which, as I understand it, the Government are deeply committed; that is, a good relationship between teachers and parents.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the interim guidance on admissions has some paragraphs which are dedicated to some of the subjects under discussion on these amendments. I am thinking in particular of paragraph 33 which deals with challenging behaviour. It says that:
"Some schools with spare capacity may find that they are required to admit an undue proportion of pupils whose behaviour can be challenging".
Other schools may be unable to take a share of such pupils as they are over-subscribed. It states:
"It is highly desirable that schools and the LEA should together agree strategies about how local admission arrangements might work to allow all schools to admit a more even share of such children".
Where that can be agreed between admissions authorities, that is extremely good. Certainly, the local education authority, as the major admissions authority, should work together with the smaller admissions authorities. That will be extremely valuable. I am reminded of many of the fears that people had when we first created grant-maintained schools. It was feared that they would not take their share of such children. I am pleased to say that grant-maintained schools more than rose to the challenge. I was particularly interested in schools in cities in, for example, Liverpool and Birmingham which made a real contribution to meeting the needs of children with challenging behaviour.

921
However, I am disquieted that there is to be a requirement, because that word "requirement" means rigidity and inflexibility, for schools that are over-subscribed—we are talking about very popular schools—quite deliberately to keep places vacant for such children should they come along. It will be very difficult if in one document the Government are saying that parental preference should be enhanced and that popular schools should be expanded while on the other hand in this document, which will become policy in due course, those schools are required quite specifically to hold vacancies on the off-chance that a child or children with challenging behaviour may come along.
Paragraph 34 goes on to state:
"Admissions authorities can decide that they should refuse to admit a child where there arc places available"—
therefore, we are talking about a school which has places available and is probably a school which is not very popular—
"unless it is to the normal year of entry, where to do so would prejudice the provisions of efficient education or the efficient use of resources".
I am not absolutely certain what that means unless it means that in the course of a year, the burden on the school would be so great that it did not have the money to pay for an extra teacher. In that case, it is understandable.
It goes on to state:
"We envisage that this will only be used in circumstances where a school has a particularly high concentration of pupils with challenging behaviour".
Therefore, we have a situation where the family comes along mid-year with a child who apparently has challenging behaviour—and I shall come to that particular point in a moment—who has specifically chosen to go to that school but is to be turned away because a view is taken either by the local education authority and/or the school that the burden on the school is sufficiently great that that child should not be given a place. Again, parental preference is being reduced, not enhanced. Therefore, there is another problem in that respect.
I have in mind a child with challenging behaviour who has never been to a school and who has perhaps just moved into an area, having previously been in an inner-city area where the secondary schools, for example, do not have a great deal of knowledge about individual children from primary schools. It is not always the case that primary schools readily admit that child A or child B is particularly challenging. Indeed, it can sometimes be said that children do not become challenging until they move into secondary schools. So how are schools to know? If they are not allowed to interview and are not allowed to meet the parents and the family, in what circumstances can a subjective judgment be made? It seems to me that any such judgments must be objective and can only be so if the school has evidence; and it can only have evidence if it has received very clear reports from the feeder schools, social services or some referral agency. But, in the main, it is important to interview the children.
922
There are some very disquieting aspects of the document; indeed, in places it is conflicting. My last question on admissions encompasses all the amendments and deals with the status of the forums. There is nothing in the document other than paragraphs headed "Forums" to show that they will exist. There is no reference to what their status will be and no reference as to who will resolve problems. After using the forums, together with all the consultation that takes place, who will resolve the disputes at the end of the day if the admissions authorities are unable to agree between themselves and with the forums? When referring to other aspects of the document it is clear that the adjudicator would resolve such disputes. However, it is disquieting to note that it is the adjudicator without any reference to the school organisation committees. It is important for me at least to know the status of the forums and who, at the end of the day, will resolve the disputes which cannot be settled between the admission authorities and the forums.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has not learnt very much about me if he thinks that I am embarrassed by an ideological conflict. I have no hesitation in agreeing with him that there is an ideological divide, as he put it, between us. We are opposed and have always been opposed—David Blunkett said this before the election and, indeed, since—to selection by ability or by interview. The whole issue of interviews is being presented as if the only community of any significance was the school. Of course, the school is a community and an important one. However, it is also part of the wider community and we have to maintain a balance between the proper autonomy of the individual admission authorities, whether they be schools, groups of schools or LEAs, and the interests of the local community as a whole.
In our view we have been perfectly consistent on interviews as part of the admissions process; indeed, as I said, that consistency dates back to before the election. We set out the position in the White Paper Excellence in Schools and repeated it in our consultation document on admissions from which the noble Baroness quoted. In order to protect their particular character, Church schools may have reason to interview pupils or parents in order to assess denominational or religious commitment. However, we believe that interviews with parents for wider purposes as part of the admission process run the risk of being over-subjective and that the results of such interviews risk being misinterpreted.
The whole point about our approach—and we would not have published such a long consultation document if this were not so—is that, as far as possible, admissions should be decided against published objective criteria rather than subjective judgments. The admissions process that the noble Lord and the official Opposition—the Conservative Party—support is one that would discriminate against less articulate parents. That is the fact of the matter. That would be selection under another name, selection in disguise. If the noble Lord thinks that he can get away with presenting the provision to this House as being an issue of the school

923
community, he is either being naïve or he is being disingenuous because that is not the way in which the world works.
What has been our approach to this difficult problem? David Blunkett in his introduction to the consultation document states,
"There can be nothing more difficult for a Secretary of State for Education and Employment than the balance to be achieved in providing guidance on admissions".
We decided that the most effective way to tackle specific admissions issues was to draw up a statutory code of practice which sets out practical guidelines on admissions issues and to which all admissions authorities and others must have regard. It does not constitute a blueprint for admissions. These must be a matter for local determination in the light of local circumstances. In cases of dispute, however the adjudicator must have regard to the advice in the code.
The Bill's purpose is to provide a clear, underpinning structure for school admissions based on local consultation, determination and adjudication. There are a host of detailed, complex and interrelated issues that will need to be built into that structure locally, but it would simply not be sensible to address these on the face of the Bill. As noble Lords know, we are consulting widely on these issues with our draft interim guidance on admissions. We shall wait to see the result of that consultation before determining what guidance we shall finally give. This consultation will inform our way forward on the code of practice.
I ought not to leave the issue of interviews without responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She asked me about city technology colleges. City technology colleges can indeed interview parents but they have in general agreed to modify their practices to have structured discussions with pupils to assess their subject aptitude. That is clearly what city technology colleges are about. New admissions legislation does not apply to city technology colleges, although they may be part of forums for the determination of local policies.
I turn now to the issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, addressed of difficult children. Of course this is a sensitive area. Our intention is not to reduce the opportunities for parental preferences to be met by requiring schools to keep places open for any reason. But there are undersubscribed schools which have a high proportion of difficult children, or which are striving to drive up their standards from a relatively low base, where admitting some pupils with challenging behaviour can be particularly detrimental to the school achieving its targets. It is with that in mind that we have proposed that such schools could refuse a child admission if they can demonstrate that to admit him or her would prejudice efficient education or the efficient use of resources at the school. But these children must find a suitable school place. We expect that this issue will be raised in the admissions forums. Surely the best way forward is for all schools and admissions authorities to work together with everyone seeking to play their full part.
I turn to Amendment No. 161C. As the House will know, the Bill already includes a provision which will require all maintained schools to have a written
924
home-school agreement, drawn up in consultation with parents. The agreement will explain the respective responsibilities of the school and of parents, and what the school expects of its pupils. Parents will be asked to sign a declaration in support of the agreement. That will include expectations about the standards of education the school will provide, the ethos of the school, regular and punctual attendance, discipline, homework and the information schools and parents will give to each other. Schools will be required to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State in drawing up their home-school agreements. We shall, as always, be consulting on the draft guidance.
However, we do not believe it is right to allow admission authorities to base their decisions on whether a parent has signed or is willing to sign. We uphold the principle that an admission authority should not be able to attach conditions when making the offer of a place: Clause 109(4) does not allow that to happen. The provision reflects the consultation that the department carried out last year which showed that 86 per cent. of respondents who commented on the use of the home-school agreements in the admission process were not in favour of using them in this way. It is therefore not appropriate for the admissions code of practice to include a provision of the kind suggested in the amendment.
Amendment No. 163A is very interesting. The wording is similar to the wording that existed in the articles of government for grant-maintained schools. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, smiling. Those articles are holy writ so far as she is concerned. However, what she has forgotten is that the previous government removed it by order, with effect from September 1996. Why did they do that? There is an interesting silence. They did it because it was not appropriate. They were wise to do that. To put it on the face of the Bill would be a retrograde step even by the standards of the previous government. I am astonished that the noble Baroness should think it appropriate to revive a provision that was rejected by her own government when she was in office.
The amendment would disapply the duty on admission authorities for voluntary aided and foundation schools to meet expressed parental preferences where to do so would be incompatible with the school's own admission arrangements. It waters down the duty to meet parental preferences. We have heard a lot of talk from noble Lords on the Official Opposition Benches about parental preference within the past few minutes. Yet this amendment would actually weaken it. We want as many parents as possible to have their preferences met, recognising that there will inevitably be disappointed parents where schools are over-subscribed.
The effect of this amendment would be to allow all foundation and voluntary schools to override parental preference, even where they have enough places to meet all the preferences. That would throw parental preference out of the window. The legislation already allows denominational and grammar schools to do so in order to preserve their character. It is right that the exceptions should be strictly limited to those cases.

925
I am afraid the truth is that the ideology in these matters is entirely on the Benches of the Official Opposition. They are determined by one means or another, by hook or by crook, to reintroduce selection, and to introduce it where they failed to introduce it over a period of 18 years. We are determined not to let them.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shared my liberal and pluralistic view of society. I have been disillusioned. I realise that the old ILEA is writ large.
I find it an insult to my former profession to think that schoolmasters look at parents coming to the school and, if they are wearing poor clothes and are rather deprived, turn their children down. I say sincerely to the noble Lord that, during all my career—albeit in privileged schools, but one school which in its history had taken the deprived Jewish people of Eastern Europe, and took immigrants—that did not happen. I say this with some indignation. The noble Lord is accusing people like me of looking at parents, looking at their clothes and their children's language, and refusing them. All I can say, as a matter of personal conviction, is that in the whole of my career I never did that. I hope that the noble Lord may allow—not publicly but somewhere—that I did not do that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that deserves a public response. Of course I did not say, I have never believed and never would have said that the noble Lord had done that. What I said was that interviews have been used for the purpose of selection, whether social or academic. The noble Lord has given me an absolute assurance that he has never done so. He had no need to do it; I never had any doubt about his integrity as a head teacher.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, nor did many of my profession do so. I must stand by my profession. The noble Lord is accusing my profession of saying that they wanted the smart people. I am not prepared to accept that. I leave the personal side of it, but I feel it very strongly. Many school teachers who read this debate will also feel it. My indignation is rare, but I feel strongly about the point.
I wish to move on. What we saw tonight is old-fashioned "statism". The state knows best. I thought that had died. What we are talking about is the right of a school. A school is a community and in the end—if I become indignant, it is because my life was concerned with schools—the relationship and future of the child is related to the school. The document on admissions forbids an interview. The assumption of the noble Lord and the reason he justified it was that the interview was used as a method of social discrimination. I disputed that and I still dispute it. Within the mass of the school teaching profession, people trust in the relationship between the pupil and the school. One cannot detach, as the noble Lord tried to do, the community at large from the school which the child enters. That will be his or her community.
926
There are many qualifications that Her Majesty's Government could have made about the proposal. However, they decided, in the true tradition of statism, of the old ILEA—which I thought the noble Lord had forgotten—that people were so bad in the teaching profession that they would judge by the suit that was worn or the language people spoke. Those in the teaching profession are not like that; they relate to people and try to enter into a community. Her Majesty's Government are trying to ensure parental choice, but inevitably some parents will not get the choice they want. It is crucial that a relationship is then established between the child and the school so that the parents feel confident.
On the whole, I have had an amiable relationship with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but I believe he has failed to see the reason behind my amendments. I accept his attack on my trust in and devotion to selection. I believe in selection. But the main and crucial point of the amendment—Amendment No. 163A—does not conflict with articles of government but relates to selection, to a degree.
The amendments I stress are Amendments Nos. 161A and 161C. I say to the House that I can see no reason, beyond the prejudice of the noble Lord that teachers will judge pupils by the suits they wear, that school teachers cannot interview parents and children. If the noble Lord wishes to put qualifications on that, it is open to him to do so on the face of the Bill. He should do so on the understanding that he and his noble friends have proposed the admissions procedure but they have not allowed for this.
I must say to noble Lords opposite that they take a tough attitude. They are assuming that I have a hidden agenda in this. I have acknowledged to the House that I believe in selection. What I am saying is that pastoral sensitivity demands allowing parental interviews. If the Government wish to put qualifications on it, it is up to them. However, the noble Lord used a Gatling gun to attack me. I had to rise to indignation because it was not just me; it was most of my profession. The noble Lord was saying that school masters would choose the fancy end of the social scale. He is wrong to do that. It is wrong not to give more consideration to these amendments and I am disappointed that a liberalism was abandoned in which I know the noble Lord believes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—with the leave of the House—perhaps he or the Minister can explain what it is in Amendment No. 163A that is already being done by the Government. Amendment No. 163A simply says that a child can be refused entry to a school if it is incompatible with the school's admission arrangements.
I remind the noble Lord of the arrangements for entry to the Oratory. The parents whose children are entering that school must sign a binding agreement. If they do not, it becomes a condition of entry. That pertains to this day and was not outlawed by the previous government. I am not sure therefore that I understand what the Minister said in response to these amendments and perhaps he or my noble friend can explain.
9.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 161A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 39.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Glentoran, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Attlee, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Blatch, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Selsdon, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Wharton, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Wise, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Maddock, B.

Chandos, V.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Rix, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Russell, E.

Grenfell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardie, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tope, L.

Haskel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Whitty, L.

Winston, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.49 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 161B and 161C not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 61, line 26, after ("matters") insert (", including the interpretation of the law,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 163. In Committee we discussed at some length the effects of the Greenwich judgment. I and other noble Lords referred then to the unpopularity of the effects of the Greenwich judgment among many parents and to the difficulties it is causing not only in outer London and in metropolitan areas but also, increasingly, in the new unitary authorities which have become relatively small LEAs. I am not returning specifically to the Greenwich judgment because this amendment does not seek to reverse the Greenwich judgment in any way. It does not deal with the effects of the Greenwich judgment, but rather, in a sense, offers some compensation for the effects of the Greenwich judgment. It is, in effect, reintroducing recoupment. I suppose that I have a sort
928
of interest to declare in that my own local authority was a considerable beneficiary under the system of recoupment when it existed.
Parents do not particularly mind children coming from just over the border. Indeed, in many urban areas the border is irrelevant to everyone except the local authority. But for the local authority, it is very difficult in terms of planning school places to have this degree of uncertainty. It is also in many ways very unfair. I use the example of my own local authority because I know it best, although I think it is typical of many. For very good geographical reasons, we educate a large number of children from the neighbouring borough of Croydon. Were those Croydon children to be educated in Croydon, Croydon Council would be receiving well over £100 per pupil more to educate its children in Croydon schools than we receive to educate the same children in Sutton schools. The reverse is true, again for very good geographical reasons. A number of our children are educated in Croydon schools and Croydon receives well over £100 more per pupil to educate those children than we would if they were in Sutton schools. That seems to be unfair.
This issue was raised on Report in the other place by my own Member of Parliament. He received a reply from the Minister, Stephen Byers, which I suspect will bear some resemblance to the reply I shall receive in a few minutes, which is that the Government have no wish to reintroduce recoupment. I understand that and I expect to hear that very shortly. Mr. Byers said in that debate:
"I can assure him"—
my Member of Parliament
"that the concerns that he has just raised will be taken into account as part of that exercise".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/3/98; col. 3744.]
The exercise to which he was referring was the wholesale review of the SSA system. My purpose in raising this issue again tonight is not so much to press for the reintroduction of recoupment, because I know that that is not going to happen, but to urge the Minister to say a little more about how he expects this issue to be dealt with in the wholesale review of the SSA, as was promised by the Minister in another place some three months ago. I would hope that, three months on, the Minister is now in a position to answer it rather more fully than was possible in March at 4.15 a.m. I look forward with great interest to hearing the response that I am about to receive. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, simply as an academic exercise, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has made even an outside estimate of the cost to Islington, which has probably the largest exodus of children to other authorities in the London area.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am not sure whether, within the rules of the House, I am allowed to respond to that. The answer is no. Until the next by-election, issues to do with Islington are not primarily my concern.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall deal with the two amendments in turn. Amendment No. 162

929
would give the Secretary of State the power to include guidance on the interpretation of the law in the admission codes of practice. As we have already said in response to similar amendments, although the Secretary of State can give his view about how the law should be interpreted, it is, and can only be, his view. A definitive interpretation of the law can come only from the courts. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will agree that it is not appropriate for a code to be given an authoritative status on matters of legal interpretation in the way proposed by his amendments. If he is not satisfied with that, he had better talk to some of his lawyer colleagues. Therefore, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw that amendment.
As the noble Lord rightly said, Amendment No. 163 is effectively an amendment to reintroduce mandatory recoupment for all pupils. The existing legislation gives the Secretary of State freedom to make inter-authority recoupment regulations where it is appropriate to do so. At the moment LEAs receive SSA support automatically for all the pupils at their schools. That is the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who spoke about Islington, which gets SSA for all the pupils in its schools just as neighbouring boroughs do because that is what it costs them. That is regardless of the pupil's home address. Only for pupils with special educational needs who are expensive to educate and unevenly distributed between authorities do we need a system providing for direct payments between authorities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, recognised, we do not want to go back to the days of mandatory recoupment for all pupils who cross local authority boundaries to attend school. Trying to keep track of hundreds of thousands of pupils who crossed LEA boundaries to attend school created red tape, led to disputes which lasted for years and diverted precious resources which could have been better spent in the classroom to raise standards. The present system combines simplicity with fairness. This amendment would only create needless bureaucracy.
However, as Mr. Stephen Byers said at Report stage in the other place, we are in the middle of a wide-ranging review of education standard spending assessments. If local authorities feel that particular difficulties are being caused by the number of what I call "out-county pupils"—we have to call them "out-of-area pupils"—and have specific proposals for changing the education SSA formula in some way, we shall be happy to consider such suggestions along with other options for change.
The noble Lord will understand that I cannot go further. We are very satisfied with the system as it works at the moment. It is for those who are dissatisfied to make suggestions. We shall listen to them thoroughly and sympathetically and take account of them in any revision of the standard spending assessment. Fundamentally, we do not want council tax payers to finance extra local authority staff to try to run an expanded recoupment scheme. It is better to finance
930
schools and pupils through the SSA system. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, on Amendment No. 162 the Minister gave me the option of either withdrawing it or discussing it with my lawyer colleagues. I shall choose the former. As regards Amendment No. 163, I remember the days of recoupment very well. I remember the long delays recovering the money due to my council and the difficulties that went with that. I am not enthusiastic to return to that system. I suspect that that was clear from the way I moved the amendment.
I was trying to tease out—I am not too surprised that I failed completely—how the Government intend to put into effect what Stephen Byers said on Report in the other place about the concerns being taken into account as part of the exercise. Three months later, I do not believe that the Minister has added anything to that other than to say that the Government are extremely happy with the situation as it is. The Minister's own party, in many of the affected areas, is rather less happy, as indeed are all the political parties. That is not surprising. I do not intend to press these amendments tonight whether threatened with my lawyer colleagues or not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
Clause 85 [Parental preferences]:
[Amendment No. 163A not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 63, leave out lines 41 to 45 and insert (", and

(b) they are approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection,

they shall have effect in relation to each of those schools despite anything in subsection (2).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 165, 167, 168, 176 and 177. Noble Lords will be astonished to hear that these are technical and clarificatory amendments aimed at removing any possible confusion to which the present drafting may give rise.
Amendment No. 164 provides clarification on two points. First, it prevents any implication that there is a general procedure for co-ordinated admission arrangements to be approved by the Secretary of State. He does so only in order to ensure that the duty to meet parental preference under Clause 85(2) does not prevent proper co-ordination. Secondly, it prevents any implication that the Clause 85(2) duty to respect parental preference is displaced completely where the Secretary of State approves co-ordinated arrangements. The duty continues to apply to the admission authorities in question, except where a situation is covered by a specific requirement in the co-ordinated arrangements.
Amendment No. 176—if I may take the amendment out of numerical order—makes clear that members of the local education authority may be observers at the hearing of an appeal panel considering the appeal by a governing body against an LEA's decision that the school should admit a twice excluded pupil. These observers cannot be present at the stage at which the appeal panel deliberates on the case it has heard and arrives at its decision.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that local education authority members should not be present when an appeal panel makes its decision on a case to which the LEA has been a party. Appeal panels must be seen to be impartial and governing bodies must have confidence that this is the case. In this respect, Amendment No. 176 would bring the procedures under Schedule 25—it is the schedule concerned with children excluded from more than one school—in line with those for admission appeals under Schedule 24, which is the general admission appeals schedule.
Amendment No. 177 is simply a tidying up amendment. It abridges the reference to the ways in which proposals to introduce banding may be given effect under Schedule 6. The phrase "fall to be implemented" replaces the existing reference to approved or otherwise determined.
Amendment No. 165 would bring in a sensible, and very limited, new regulation-making power. The Bill allows for occasions when a major change in circumstances leads an admission authority to vary the arrangements which it has already determined and which have therefore achieved local agreement. Where it wants to make a variation, however, the Bill currently requires that the admission authority must refer the matter to the adjudicator in every case.
Amendment No. 165 would allow for regulations to specify that this reference to the adjudicator would not be necessary for certain types of variation. It has the same purpose as the similar regulation-making power in Clause 89(1)(c) which allows the Secretary of State to specify matters which may not be referred to the adjudicator for determination. This amendment would work to prevent trivial variations coming to the adjudicator or those which are uncontentious, such as where a fire to a school might justify an immediate reduction in the school's published admission number. Amendment No. 167 is a consequential drafting change.
Finally, on Amendment No. 168, adjudication is an important element of the new admissions framework. The Bill gives the adjudicator—or the Secretary of State in certain circumstances—the power to hear objections to an admission authority's arrangements. If he upholds an objection, his decision is then binding on that admission authority.
In the majority of cases, it will not be necessary to spell out exactly what the admission authority must do to change its arrangements. In many cases, the change will be obvious. In many others, it will be sufficient for the authority to implement the adjudicator's or the Secretary of State's decision as it thinks appropriate.
We have stressed in our draft interim guidance on admissions the need for admission arrangements to be co-ordinated locally. Some objections that are referred to the adjudicator may have implications for the co-ordination of the arrangements of a number of schools. Where objections are made against several schools, allowing each of them to implement the adjudicator's decision in different ways could threaten the desired co-ordination. This amendment will ensure that the adjudicator and the Secretary of State have the power—it may not have to be used often—to specify precisely what the new admission arrangements should be. It clarifies the adjudicator's powers on an objection and ensures that his decisions can result in co-ordinated arrangements where a number of schools are involved. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to refer only to Amendment No. 168. Where an adjudicator not only makes a determination but also a direction for a modification, whether that modification results in overcapacity, undercapacity, or some cost to the LEA—perhaps transport costs or even building costs, depending on the particular determination that is made—am I right in thinking that the LEA will be under an obligation to conform with the modification, because this is a right of direction, and will have to meet the costs? Is it right that those costs would have to pre-empt any other expenditure that the LEA might deem to be more appropriate at that time?
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I speak also to Amendment No. 168. The Minister referred to the amendments as technical. However, I believe that the issue raised by Amendment No. 168 goes further. There was considerable concern, when the provisions of the Bill were first made public, about the powers of the adjudicator. As a result of that concern, not least in relation to admissions to denominational schools, it was agreed that if there was any dispute in NSAC on the question of admissions on religious criteria it would be referred to the Secretary of State and not an adjudicator.
It appears that the Secretary of State is to be given considerable powers under this amendment to specify modifications in relation to the admission arrangements in question. I should like to have an assurance that those powers will not be used to change the character of the admissions policy of denominational schools which I believe is possible under this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful both to the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness for their interventions. The cost of implementing the decisions of adjudicators will fall on the local education authority, if I correctly understand the question posed by the noble Baroness. The right reverend Prelate is right to spell out the fact that after discussion with the Churches it was agreed that because of their concern about the powers of adjudicators the appeal should be to the Secretary of State rather than the adjudicator. That was why on a number of occasions I referred to the Secretary of State rather than the

933
adjudicator. It is also true that the Secretary of State at the moment is involved in Wales as part of the transitional arrangements for Welsh devolution.
The right reverend Prelate asked whether the implementation of decisions made by the Secretary of State could affect the character of the admissions policy of denominational schools. My immediate reaction to that is: as little as possible. However, I shall write to the right reverend Prelate in order to make the point clear.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may pose a question apropos the response of the Minister and the point raised by the right reverend Prelate. It is my understanding that denominational schools are linked with foundation schools. It is my understanding, which perhaps can be confirmed or otherwise, that the character of the admissions policy of foundation schools, just like Church schools, who are their own admissions authority, cannot be changed. Am I correct that they would be exempt from a direction by the adjudicator to modify their admissions arrangements?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, matters are referred to the adjudicator only when there is disagreement about admissions policies. That is the starting point. Therefore, nearly all decisions on admissions will be determined locally rather than by the adjudicator or the Secretary of State. Beyond that in nearly all cases the decision of the adjudicator will be simple and can be implemented in a straightforward way. Amendment No. 168 is very limited. It only provides that where it is necessary for the adjudicator to spell out what the admissions authority must do to change its arrangements he will have power to do so. This does not in any way change the duty of the adjudicator. It refers only to the implementation of his decision. Therefore, no change is proposed to which the question of the noble Baroness is relevant.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was not the point of my question. The point of my question is: are foundation schools exempt from a determination and/or a modification direction by the adjudicator?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not my understanding that any schools are exempt. A decision has to be made. If it cannot be made locally, it has to be made by the adjudicator. If I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 [Procedure for determining admission arrangements]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 66, line 4, leave out from first ("shall") to end of line and insert ("(except in a case where their proposed variations fall within any description of variations prescribed for the purposes of this subsection) refer the proposed variations to the adjudicator, and shall (in every case)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 66, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) as to the information to be published by foundation and voluntary aided schools and by schools maintained by the local education authority about the operation of their admissions policy in the previous year.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 which are on the same subject. Your Lordships will have noticed that the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is indicated on the Marshalled List. He is an expert in billing, as he reminded us at an earlier session of the Report stage. It is a great honour to have so distinguished a thespian as my supporting cast. I am grateful to him for his support.
Amendment No. 166 applies to Clause 88 which relates to the procedure for determining admission arrangements. It provides that regulations shall make provision as to the information to be published by all schools about the operation of their admissions policy in the previous year.
The following two amendments apply to Clause 91 which relates to the publication of information about admissions. The amendments require that the effect of the operation of the admissions policy on foundation or voluntary aided schools should be published, and that other schools should publish information about the operation of their admissions policy in the previous year.
The amendments are not designed to ensure that admissions policy is published, because the clauses already make provision for that. The point is to ensure that the operation of those policies shall be reported on at the end of the year so that local people can see not merely what are the admissions policies but how they have operated in their locality. That is important for all parents, but it is especially important for the parents of children with special educational needs. I shall now hand over to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, to complete the introduction of the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: My Lords, first, I must thank the noble Baroness for her kind words about my dramatic abilities. She is kinder to me, perhaps, than some of the critics used to be many years ago down the road. From the Minister's response to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, in Committee, I have reason to believe that the Government are sympathetic to the idea that mechanisms should be available to enable the monitoring of admissions arrangements to take place.
One of our concerns is that as a result of the more hands-off relationship envisaged in the draft code of practice on LEA/school relations, such mechanisms may appear in some schools to encroach upon their autonomy. We are therefore anxious that some formal mechanism should exist for securing information about admissions. The Minister may propose alternative ways of securing the same objective, but the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and I would welcome any government proposals designed to do this.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, similar amendments were tabled during the Committee stage. They would require regulations to include a requirement on each school to report on the outcome of the operation of the previous year's admissions policy and require publication by the school of information about the effects of that policy.
We understand that during the previous stage and at this stage of the Bill the main aim and motivation in tabling the amendments has been to ensure that information was readily available so that it could be judged and monitored whether there was any discrimination against children or the parents of children with special educational needs. The amendments go wider than that in terms of giving a general report on the admissions policy and its effect.
As regards ensuring that there is no discrimination against children with special educational needs without statements, the Government's position is clear. We are fully sympathetic to that aim and we have been forthright in publicly saying so. The guidance to which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred is bold and straightforward. The interim guidance clearly states that:
"children with special educational needs but without statements must be treated no less favourably than other applicants".
It also emphasises that an admissions authority may not refuse to admit a pupil just because it feels unable to cater for his or her special educational needs. The reaction of the Special Educational Consortium and others has been to welcome that interim guidance.
Our commitment in this area is clear. We shall not allow children with SEN, including those with a disability, to be discriminated against. I repeat the promise to take careful account of the issues that have been raised in the general consultation on the future of SEN policy in our proposals on inclusion in mainstream education.
As regards the implications of the amendments, leaving aside the fact that they require a wide-ranging and non-specific report on the operations of admissions policy, we are not yet convinced that as regards SEN children the appropriate way forward is to put on the face of the Bill a requirement that such information should be published. If we were convinced of such a move, it would be appropriate for regulations rather than for primary legislation. I can give no firm commitment, but we should be happy to consider the issue further in the context of drafting regulations on which we shall be consulting. We do not believe that the amendments achieve the main motivation behind them and we believe that they are not appropriate for the face of the Bill. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he repeated his statement from paragraph 30 of the document making it clear that an admissions authority may not refuse to admit a pupil because it feels unable to cater for his or her special educational needs. If the authority feels not only that it is unable to cater but that it cannot cater for such needs, it does the child
936
no favour to be required to accept. What will happen in the case of a school which cannot meet the special needs of the child?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is part of a general policy on improving access and inclusion of SEN children in mainstream education. Therefore, there are obligations concerning the provision of support and access which will be part of the whole policy. In relation to a particular example, access to a school of first choice may not be guaranteed if there were a genuine objective and clear reason for being totally unable to meet the particular requirements of the child. That would be true. But the intention is clear here that we should make that support and access available and the admissions authority would not be able to refuse a child with special educational needs of whatever sort.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I want to make only one tiny caveat. The implications of these amendments did not relate only to children with special educational needs without statements. They related to all children with special educational needs. Apart from that, I thought that much of what the Minister said was extremely useful to us and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 66, line 33, after first ("of") insert ("any of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Reference of objections to adjudicator or Secretary of State]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 67, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) Where the adjudicator or the Secretary of State decides that an objection referred to him under this section should be upheld to any extent, his decision on the objection may specify the modifications that are to be made to the admission arrangements in question.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 168A:
Page 67, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Any decision of the adjudicator shall be taken with a view to promoting, for the admission authorities for maintained schools of any prescribed description—

(a) consultation and discussion between admission authorities over the determination of admission arrangements;

(b) the coordination of admission arrangements including common timetables and common application forms;

(c) compliance with parental preference to the maximum possible extent;

(d) the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment sets out the criteria to which the adjudicator must have regard in resolving local disputes about admission arrangements. I should say at the outset that this is a probing amendment and my intention in moving it is

937
to give the Minister an opportunity to provide further information about the role of the adjudicator in the admissions process.
We have already made clear our view about adjudicators, and I am sure that we shall return to that. But if we are to have them, we need to be clearer than we are at present about their role. That is because at present the Bill is silent on the factors which the adjudicator will take into account in reaching decisions. It is not clear whether the adjudicator will be required to have regard to the effect of his decisions on factors such as the supply of school places locally, parental choice and the efficient use of public money.
The department's interim guidance is not clear about how adjudicators will approach disputes; about co-ordination among admission authorities; and the compatibility of admission policies across LEA areas. It is not clear whether the Secretary of State's power to impose a common admissions system, as has recently been exercised in Hertfordshire but is to be repealed by this Bill, will pass to the adjudicator.
Will the Minister confirm that the DfEE's statutory admissions code, when it is issued early next year, will strongly encourage adjudicators to take into account the wider implications of decisions about an individual school's admission arrangements for other local schools? Will he confirm also that the need to co-ordinate admission procedures for the benefit of parents, children and the environment—for example, as regards travel to school—will be paramount in the Government's new policies on admission arrangements? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very fond of this amendment. I take it as being the Liberal Democrat Party's response to the consultation which has been provided in the consultative draft—the interim guidance on schools admissions. The noble Lord has looked at the key principles on pages 6 and 7 of the consultative draft; he has paraphrased some of the key principles there; he has added to them in other cases in a most helpful way. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord.
For example, paragraph (a) of his amendment which refers to,
"consultation and discussion between admission authorities",
is very close to the words in paragraph 13 of the key principles. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are very close to the wording in paragraph 8 of the key principles. I have not yet found the equivalent in the key principles to paragraph (d) about the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources. But it is a valuable addition and contribution. We are grateful to the noble Lord for it and we shall include that formally in the submission from the Liberal Democrat Party to our consultation process.
The noble Lord knows perfectly well that we are working towards a statutory code of practice and that its final form will be settled next year, following the use of the interim guidance and the consultative process which accompanies it. To that extent, it would be entirely
938
inappropriate for us to include his wording or ours on the face of the Bill at this time. It would stultify—indeed remove—the value of the consultation process into which we are entering.
I know, because I said it earlier, that the noble Lord is aware of the important point in this respect; namely that the adjudicator must have regard to the statutory code of practice in reaching his decisions. If and when the statutory code of practice reaches the same conclusions as the noble Lord has in his amendment, I think he will then be entirely reassured by that position.
While on the subject of the powers and responsibilities of the adjudicator, perhaps I may refer back to a question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when we were considering an earlier amendment. She asked whether there was special provision for the character of foundation schools. I am not sure that my answer was clear. I can tell her now that there is no special provision for foundation schools, but the fundamental principle which may reassure her is that the adjudicator's admission decision must reflect the school's existing character. If the noble Baroness is worried that the adjudicator may change the character of the school in question, she may set her mind at rest. That is not within the power of the adjudicator.
On the basis of the welcome that I have given to the noble Lord's contribution, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure whether the rules have been breached as we are now talking about a different amendment. However, I am grateful for the noble Lord's explanation, even though I do not understand what he means by "character" of the school. If a foundation school is its own admissions authority and its admissions policy has to be agreed, does the foundation school agree its own admissions policy and, thereafter, will it be open to an adjudicator to vary or modify it in any way? If it is not, is its admissions authority an absolute power to that school?
As I said, I do not understand the word "character" in this context; indeed, it would have to be defined for me. Presumably the modification of admissions arrangements does not necessarily mean changing the character of the school. If standard numbers or age ranges are changed, it is important to understand exactly what the Minister means by the word "character".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the character of a school is defined in statute. I shall write to the noble Baroness indicating exactly where.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am sad and confused. I am sad that the Minister should apparently be so surprised that my amendment was so helpful. I have spent the past 10 days on the Bill trying to be helpful to the Government and very occasionally, they recognise that fact. Indeed, the noble Lord was so surprised at one of my amendments in Committee that he agreed to take it away and consider it; and tonight we had precisely the same amendment tabled in the name of the noble

939
Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Therefore, I do not know why the noble Lord should still be surprised that I am helpful.
I am now confused because a little further on in his response the noble Lord offered to include something in the Liberal Democrats' response to the consultation. The Minister's help to us is extremely welcome. However, before he is really able to contribute to a Liberal Democrat response, there are one or two other steps that he will need to take first. If he wishes to discuss such matters with me later, I shall be only too happy to do so.
I made clear in moving the amendment that it was a probing amendment. I think it has probably probed even deeper than I thought in that we have discovered some secret inclinations of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that we had not hitherto suspected. I do not wish to press the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 [Publication of information about admissions]:
[Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 171:
After Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
(" .—(1) The Education Act 1996 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 316 (children with special educational needs normally to be educated in mainstream schools)—

(a) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—

"(1) Any person exercising functions under this Part in respect of a child with special educational needs who should be educated in school shall secure that the child is educated in a school which is not a special school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of the parent and the needs and ascertainable wishes of the child."; and

(b) subsection (2) shall be omitted.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved and withdrew an identical amendment in Committee on 8th June. Its purpose is to ensure that any child with a statement of special educational needs will be educated in a mainstream school, provided that is compatible with his educational needs and the wishes of his parent. I stress again that it is only when the parent wishes it. I explained the details of the amendment at length, and the difficulties parents still encounter with some LEAs at cols. 824, 825, 826, and 827 of Hansard. I shall not repeat the arguments because I do not want to bore your Lordships rigid and I do not intend to divide on this amendment. I simply hope the Minister can give a somewhat stronger message to those LEAs which 17 years after the Education Act 1981 are still reluctant to offer a mainstream option to children with statements.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, has had to leave the Chamber but supports the amendment most warmly as she clearly demonstrated in Committee at col. 827 when she said that inclusive education when successful—I accept that it cannot be rushed or skimped—benefits
940
both children with and without special educational needs. That surely must be the way to a better understanding and relationship in the adult world.
From the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at cols. 833 and 834, and an extremely helpful meeting with officials for which I am grateful, it became clear that before embarking on any possible legislation the Government wish to consider the responses to the Green Paper and the wider work of the disability task force which will, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Whitty,
"specifically review the present exclusion of education from the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act".—[Official Report, 8/6/98; col. 833.]
This is extremely welcome. I and others tried unsuccessfully to include education during the passage of the DDA. On rereading the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in Committee, I find that there is a strong message for the future. I have to accept—and the special education consortium accepts—that we shall have to wait until the responses from the Green Paper are received. But the task force may not report—unless the Minister can indicate to the contrary—for a considerable time. I hope we do not have to wait too long before resolving in law, if necessary, this problem of dilatory LEAs.
However, that is for the future. I very much hope that in the meantime the Government will send a strong message to the reluctant LEAs, whether it be with carrots, sticks or a combination of those. Carrots could perhaps be in the form of some incentive to LEAs, perhaps a bridging loan to those LEAs which provide a mainstream option; or there could be a stick, but rather more of a firm nudge than a stick in the form of a letter to dilatory LEAs; or perhaps a letter to all LEAs reminding them of their general duty to provide mainstream places where this is consistent with parents' wishes.
I look forward to the Minister's reply. The message for the future is clearly encouraging. I hope today that the Minister can offer a firm message for the immediate future and will at the very least be able to give a tangible reminder to LEAs of their general duty to provide a mainstream place, where it is a parent's wish, for any statemented child who would benefit from such an education. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth, the rest of the supporting cast having made their exit into the night. That leads me to a point about my exit on Tuesday last from the Report stage of the Bill. I am happy to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, is reported in Hansard as saying that I had been called away on other business. Like a well known American, I cannot tell a lie. I must confess that I was called away to watch England lose in the World Cup.
On the other hand, that early exit lent some colouring to the Bill that is before us. For one thing, it quite clearly illustrated truancy on my part. It also illustrated challenging behaviour on the part of David Beckham, and, furthermore, exclusion by the Danish referee as he was sent off. However, it also supported this amendment moved by my noble friend, in that it offered choice.

941
There was the choice that I could have stayed. There was choice in that David Beckham need not have lashed out with his foot, and choice in that the referee could have shown him the yellow card instead of the red one. That is all we are asking in this amendment. We believe that choice for parents and for pupils with special educational needs to attend the school of their choice is of vital importance.
Last year there was the sad case, which was lost in the courts, of the girl with Downs syndrome who wanted to go from primary to secondary school. She wanted to go; her fellow pupils wanted her to go; and her parents wanted her to go. But unfortunately the school concerned said that it did not have the necessary facilities available. She was rejected, and had to attend a special school. That seems to be in contravention of all the circulars that have been published. The Government should make some sort of reparation in this direction. We are perhaps initially seeking letters to LEAs, schools etc. However, we hope that further legislation will eventually be forthcoming
When I visited officials at the Department for Education with my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, I left with them a study that had taken place in California. I know that comparisons between America and this country are not totally apposite. However, of children with special educational needs—some with profound disabilities—who attended mainstream schools and were given the correct facilities and support there, it was proved beyond doubt that after they left school and went into the world outside they became a decreasing cost to the state in terms of the support that they needed. Their performance in later life was considerably enhanced by their being absorbed into mainstream schools.
I know that it is a tremendous bone of contention between parents as to whether to send their child to a special school or a mainstream school. The amendment that was accepted today in relation to bullying—about which I am so happy—will help to lessen the problems facing parents. Bullying has been a very real fear on their part in the past.
The question of choice should be uppermost in the Government's mind. As more support is given to mainstream schools, a great deal will be gained by pupils, and by their parents, if they are able to attend such schools if they so wish.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is one amendment to which I should like to have put my name, but I was rather elbowed out of the way in the rush to support it.
To continue the sporting analogy, football is a rather strange game. I have always felt that a game in which you do not use the world's most complicated tool—that at the end of your arm—is bound to lead to odd aberrations in behaviour. The young gentleman who decided, rather strangely, when lying face down on the floor that it was a good time to kick his opponent was exhibiting very strange behaviour. I suggest that his only safety lay in his being shown the red card rather than anything else.
942
The debate about those with special educational needs attending mainstream schools has always been covered by a series of assumptions which have tended to be different depending on which part of the SEN world people come from. It depends on the appropriateness of the help that can be given to certain people. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, pointed out, there are certain groups where the case is proven that it is a positive aspect, provided there is sympathy within the school.
Other groups need more specialist help which may be provided in a more specialist environment, but we are arguing around the edges of the problem now. The amendment represents the compromise and agreement which have come from the SEN lobby itself. Surely it should be accepted, if not now, then very soon, or with other wording. What we are talking about is bringing the child on board with the parents and considering the appropriateness of the teachers. If those are all brought together, surely we will be able to integrate to a far higher degree.
In addition, if we start to pay attention to this matter with a true spirit, the interchange between special schools and the mainstream schools will become much easier. Most people with SEN problems will benefit from some mainstream education. It is silly to say that certain groups cannot be integrated; indeed, it may be a case of going outside the system to support units and then coming back in. An amendment like this must be included in the legislation at some point so that we can bring people in.
There will always be a degree of prejudice. I mention the demon word "dyslexia" again. I have come across teachers who have said privately to me, "I don't believe in dyslexia". You can then show them brain scans with different areas of electro-activity showing the difference between the two and they still say they do not believe it. One is rather under the impression that they believe that the world is round. But that goes on. Surely at some point we must have some such amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I had the privilege of taking the 1993 Act through the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, was very much involved. Part III decreed by law that the educational needs of the child should be paramount in all cases. If the parental preference was consistent with the educational needs of the child, it should be acceded to. Since then what has happened in the courts has thrown that into some confusion because it seems that local education authorities under the law can plead resources. Where problems normally arise is not in choosing mainstream education for a child with special education needs but choosing special education provision because it is a costly provision for the LEA. Because resources are always finite for the LEAs, they will want it to be cost-effective as well as educationally effective. I do not know how this amendment fits in with the provisions of the Act. I was disturbed by the case cited by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, mainly because the educational needs of the child, the parental preference, supported by everyone who knew that child, seemed to argue in favour of the child moving into mainstream education. I wonder

943
whether the tribunal system set up by Part III of the Act was not effective and whether the review has thrown up a deficiency which needs to be addressed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, without following the noble Lord, Lord Rix, too far down the path of footballing analogies, I must observe that I find it difficult to imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, could ever be elbowed out in any rush. However, the provisions in Section 316 of the Education Act 1996 say that a child with special educational needs must be educated at a mainstream school provided that is what the parents want. But—and it is a very important but—the section goes on to give local education authorities three reasons why they may legitimately not meet a parent's preference for a mainstream place. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, alluded to them indirectly. I do not think I need go through them. They are familiar to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
There are strong and cogent arguments that the conditions built into Section 316 in practice make it possible for LEAs to override perhaps a little too easily parents' preferences for mainstream education. There is concern that, rather than safeguarding parents' rights to secure a mainstream placement wherever possible, Section 316 is now seen by some as an obstacle to inclusion.
The House will be in no doubt as to the commitment of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and indeed of the whole Government to the principle that children with special educational needs should be included in mainstream schools wherever that is what parents want and provided it is consistent with meeting the child's educational needs. That must be paramount. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We are determined to make progress in that direction.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, for saying that one should not be rushed in this area. We want real and lasting progress. And it must cohere with the broader improvements that we seek for disabled people generally. The task force, which my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment is leading, will therefore address such issues when it looks at the relationship between education and disability discrimination legislation. If that works and the continuing scrutiny of the education barriers to inclusion confirm a need to change these provisions, we shall be ready to do so. But the House will know how complex and sensitive this area is. If changes are made, we must ensure that they are the right changes and that they will work for everyone—for parents and children who want special schools; for parents and children who want mainstream schools; and for those parents and children who do not choose to express a preference for a specific school. It is essential that each child receives appropriate educational provision and that the schools they attend feel confident that they can address the pupil's full range of needs.
I hope that noble Lords will be patient on this point. I do not believe they will have to wait too long. I can give an unequivocal undertaking on behalf of the Government that we shall make whatever proposals we believe to be necessary to promote inclusion and to
944
ensure that inclusive education is of high quality. Those proposals, if appropriate, will include the possibility of changes in the law. But it would be premature to give a definitive commitment until we have been able to consult on specific proposals. Our expectation is that we shall propose such changes. In doing so, we shall equally safeguard the rights of those parents who wish to express a preference, as some do, for a special school placement for their child. That is important.
It would greatly assist the Government's deliberations in this area if we can continue the department's most helpful dialogue with noble Lords in whose names the amendment stands. I know that my honourable friend, Estelle Morris, the Minister with responsibility for special educational needs, would value an opportunity to discuss this subject further and will be writing to noble Lords to suggest a meeting.
In following up the responses to our consultation on the Green Paper, we will also be drawing the attention of LEAs and others to the requirement of the law and reminding authorities of their general duty to provide a mainstream place if that is what parents want. We know that some LEAs and some schools are much better equipped than others to include children with special educational needs, and it will be a major part of our programme over the next few years to increase greatly schools' and LEAs' ability to provide properly for those children.
On the noble Baroness's more specific question, as we have said previously the timing of our follow-up to the Green Paper will be linked to the availability of resources. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, but I can assure the House that we will be seeking to ensure that resources are included to support work on moving towards increased inclusion.
I hope that from what I have said the noble Baroness will be reassured of our commitment to do whatever is necessary to ensure that legislation works in a way that was intended and that she will therefore be persuaded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy De Knayth: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rix for his staunch and enlivening support. I agree very much with what he said about bullying. I hope that will help enormously. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his support once again. I regret that there is space for only four names on an amendment. The noble Lord said that the amendment has a lot to recommend it. I am pleased that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when I re-read him in Committee, said that the legislation will be forthcoming if it is necessary. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her thoughtful questions and support.
I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the difficulties of Section 316 and the problems there have been with the loopholes. I note what she said about the task force. I hope that if the task force takes a lot longer than the Green Paper the Government will consider changing the law, if that is found to be necessary.

945
I am grateful that the Minister will be writing to noble Lords to arrange a meeting and to LEAs to draw attention to the matter. I feel that we have progressed a great deal today and I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 92 [Fixing admission numbers]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 171 A:
Page 71, line 17, leave out from ("of") to first ("the") in line 19 and insert ("fifteen working days of the date of the proposal").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 171A I seek to reduce the length of time mentioned in the Bill from two months to 15 working days. There is a requirement to lift the admission numbers to above the set limit, which is particularly relevant to small and medium-sized primary schools and those which have mixed-year groups.
The schools face difficulties when a child is newly moved into the area or a child qualifies for a priority place for a special social reason. In that regard, one of the schools of which my husband is a governor—and this is why I particularly move the amendment—has a one-parent ratio of 70 per cent. Therefore the movements in and out of the school during the term is very rapid and continuous. Obviously if numbers are set and more children want to come in, they would have to wait for two months. That is a long time to wait.
If the Government are going down the road of being very proscriptive, they must make arrangements to deal quickly with such matters. The amendment would ensure a more rapid response to the admission numbers. I hope that the Minister will consider it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, where a proposal is made to an admission authority by either the governing body of a school or the LEA for an increase in admission numbers, enough time should be allowed for the proposal to be properly considered. The admission number for the school cannot be lower than the standard number. A child may not be refused admission to a school on the grounds of prejudice to efficient education or efficient use of resources unless the number of applications for admission exceeds that minimum number.
The standard number can be changed only in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 23, which requires the consultation of interested parties. Admission authorities may publish an admission number higher than the standard number if they want and must then admit up to that number. Where a proposal to an admission authority to increase admission numbers is rejected, the proposer may seek an increase in the standard number.
It is right that admission authorities should have proper time to consider the consequences of any proposal. We consider that two months is appropriate. The provisions in the Bill regarding this matter directly reflect existing provisions under the Education Reform Act 1988 and are consolidated in the Education Act 1996, introduced by the previous Government. There is
946
no change in the legislation in this Bill and we see no reason to make such a change. Having explained that, I hope that the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I will think on it. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 71, line 33, leave out from ("the") to end of line 34 and insert ("coming into force of regulations under section 1 by virtue of which any limit on class size is to apply, or be varied, in relation to any such class.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 23 [Determination, variation and review of standard numbers]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 173 to 175:
Page 210, line 46, leave out ("limits imposed under section 1 which apply") and insert ("limit imposed under section 1 which applies").
Page 213, line 20, leave out ("limits imposed under section 1 which apply") and insert ("limit imposed under section 1 which applies").
Page 214, line 15, leave out from ("the") to end of line 17 and insert ("coming into force of regulations under section 1 by virtue of which any limit on class size is to apply, or be varied, in relation to any such class at the school.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 24 [Admission appeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 175A:
Page 218, leave out lines 47 to 49.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, paragraph 17 of Schedule 24 and paragraph 14 of Schedule 25 give the Secretary of State the power to make an order to,
"make such amendments of this Schedule as he considers expedient".
My understanding is that that applies however insignificant it may be or however substantial it may be. Therefore, without any understanding of the scope or the limit of any such amendments, I believe that this is a power too far. They may well be very minor amendments but these are schedules that go with the admissions provisions. It seems to me that admissions policies could be changed quite substantially if a Secretary of State is given such a free hand as to make amendments as he or she considers expedient. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, these amendments would affect the schedules which set out the statutory requirements for the constitution of appeals panels and the procedures to be allowed at an appeal hearing. Apart from the specific requirements set out in these schedules, all other matters relating to the procedure on appeals are determined by the body or bodies by whom the arrangements are made. Under separate provisions in the Bill, those bodies will be required to have regard to the guidance set out in a code of practice when determining the appeals procedure. Appeals panels, too, will be covered by the code.
f
947
As in the present non-statutory code of practice on appeals, the guidance in the statutory code of practice is likely to be fairly detailed. As I have said before, we do not think that such detail should be on the face of the Bill. All that the Bill needs to contain is the essential basic requirements. However, I am a little puzzled by what the noble Baroness has said since what is in these schedules refers only to appeals, not to wider policies, so I do not think that the scope is as wide as the noble Baroness seemed to imply.
We cannot, however, rule out the need to alter these statutory requirements in the future or to add to them; for example, if there is evidence of abuse, or in the light of a court judgment, or on advice from the Council on Tribunals under whose supervision appeals panels fall. An example might be where we found there was a need for an additional mandatory safeguard for parents appearing before the appeals. That is why we think it is both sensible and necessary to have these powers. Without them, the statutory requirements for hearing these appeals could never be altered except by bringing forward another Bill. Clearly, that would not make much sense.
We have already responded to the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and amended Clause 135(5) in Committee. This now requires any order made under these schedules to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The provision in each schedule to allow the Secretary of State to make an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure reflects that in Schedule 18 on exclusion appeals, which has already been approved by this House. We have already made the amendment recommended by the committee and I have explained
948
why these powers are necessary. So I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I am satisfied with that reply. As I understand it, Sections 93 and 94 are included in Clause 135 as any orders coming under them will be by the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 25 [Children to whom section 86 applies: appeals by governing bodies]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 220, line 5, after ("authority,") insert ("may attend, as an observer, any hearing of an appeal by an appeal panel;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 176A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Lords amendment in lieu of one of the Commons amendments disagreed to and with the Commons amendments to which the Lords have disagreed insisted on, with reasons for such disagreement and insistence; the Commons reasons ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

  Hedgerows: Protection
  Hedgerows: Protection
  Packaging Regulations: Review
  Packaging Regulations: Review
  Humber Bridge Debt
  Humber Bridge Debt
  Local Government Commission for England
  Local Government Commission for England
  Stoneham, Southampton: Planning Application
  Stoneham, Southampton: Planning Application
  Life Peerages
  Life Peerages
  Sierra Leone: Support to ECOMOG
  Sierra Leone: Support to ECOMOG
  Fissile Materials: Proposed Treaty
  Fissile Materials: Proposed Treaty
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Report
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Report
  Prison Population Data
  Prison Population Data
  Boards of Visitors: Chairmen and Vice Chairmen
  Boards of Visitors: Chairmen and Vice Chairmen
  "Campsfield Five": Removal from UK
  "Campsfield Five": Removal from UK
  Alcohol Abuse by Children
  Alcohol Abuse by Children
  Hepatitis "C": Haemophilia Society's Representation
  Hepatitis "C": Haemophilia Society's Representation
  Harcourt Corridor: New Light Fittings
  Harcourt Corridor: New Light Fittings
  House of Lords: Offices
  House of Lords: Offices
  House of Lords: Staff
  House of Lords: Staff